• Trevor Cooper

The Impact of lies and coercive control for money

Updated: Jun 24, 2020

Recent articles in The Australian of a “Father fights $10k in compensation on false sex abuse victim” is about the case of Grainger, where his daughter will receive compensation from the NSW Victims Services when she reaches the age of 18, as a victim of rape perpetrated by Grainger (the father), filed by the mother, yet ruled in court decisions to have never happened and is a thoroughly decent human being, has prompted this blog.

Attempts to have the payment rescinded by requests and supplying court findings have been unsuccessful and as a good protective parent, trying to ensure his daughter is not further traumatised by the false narrative when she turns 18, the father has taken the NSW Victims Services to court. While taking the NSW Victims Services to court is unusual, the use of false allegations including child sex abuse is well known within the sector as described by Justice Collier over 6 years ago. More on Justice Collier’s perspective can be seen in the “Dad Documentary” and while he appears several times in the documentary and recommend you watch it all, you can quickly see his assessment of the common situations between 10:50->11:40 & 15:20->16:20.

What the Grainger case shows us is a one aspect of the perverse motivation of a parent to cut the other parent out of the child’s life, regardless of the damage to that child in their lust for control and satisfy an insatiable greed. It also shows us the callous nature of the public service that is perpetrating a crime akin to the alleged crime itself and therefore raises the question of their personal culpability.

What we need to consider in the Grainger vs. NSW Victims Service matter is that NSW Victims Service:

  • having been sent the court findings,

  • Showed the alleged crime did not happen,

  • Have been told why the payment should not be made, and therefore are

  • Actively and knowingly causing damage.

This is not a crime of opportunity by a mentally unhealthy or simply evil person, but a calculated decision by the NSW Victims Service that know they will likely cause the psychological damage, possibly more damaging than the crime itself (if it had happened), knowingly being perpetrated and from the young girls perspective will now be by the government that is charged to protect her.

A typical case of child abuse as collateral damage, from domestic violence against a protective parent, using coercive control, is the case of C - where a young girl was implanted with false memories and how the child, (now adult), will have nothing to do with the father. Taken from page 324 of the book “The Pinball Machine The Family Separation Industry and Parental Alienation”)

In one case, the mother recruited a social worker and the questioning method by the social worker to the child meant that false memories were implanted into the child that she had been sexually abused by the targeted parent. It was proven in court that the memories were false and the abuse could not have happened, yet the child retains the memories which must be devastating, and will not see the father. The consequences for the real perpetrators of abuse, the mother and social worker, have not yet been realised.

The massive damage the tactic of parental alienation and alleging sexual abuse has on the:

  • Targeted parent: is best described in recent research

  • Children: is described by many experts such as this article by Edward Kruk and when you read other articles from specialists in the Parental Alienation area its impact can be equivalent to the worst forms of abuse (including physical, sexual & neglect).

  • Perpetrator: is not well described as there is little literature. This may stem from the personality drivers (often Borderline or Narcissistic personality disorders that are both described in DSM5) that lead them to perpetrate and possibly reject being assessed. One thing that is often stated is that the police and court believing and acting upon the false allegations before any investigation, reinforces the accuser’s false beliefs and probably contributes to their delusion! In other words, the collusive nature of the police, social workers and others are amplifying, i.e. making worse, a diagnosable illness.

The Grainger case that epitomises that tens of thousands of cases that plague the Family Separation Industry but gone that step further with a government department openly and defiantly, making a payment to a beneficiary after receiving evidence (in the form of judicial decisions), that it was fraudulently made and in the full knowledge that it will cause further damage.

How does this happen? I like to think the majority of professionals are not acting maliciously but are operating with a bias and often outside their training (which could impact their insurance validity and should be subject to swift professional association sanctions). While I will elaborate on such a bias, this is clearly not applicable to the Grainger case at this point in time.

I will illustrate an example of professional bias with a personal but unrelated example:

Many years ago, I suffered a knee condition such that I had problems walking quickly across a road, let alone participating in 10km fun runs.

  • The first specialist I was referred to was a highly regarded physiotherapist that was doing research on the thigh muscles balance and concluded my thighs were out of balance pulling the knee cap to one side and causing pain.

  • The second specialist I was referred to was a sports podiatrist that recommended orthotic innersoles as that would fix a rotation in my foot that was causing the knee cap to move to one side and while it made a small and temporary difference was still unable to run.

  • The third specialist was an orthopaedic surgeon that said he did not want to do an arthroscope as that could do damage and to just ignore the pain, keep a diary and go a bit further each day and it worked. A plica (some call it a skin fold but feel free to look it up) under the knee cap was concluded as the cause which the running through had ground down and removed the problem.

All of them were acting in their profitable speciality and in what they believed was my best interest, however the first two had a bias that they were not able to see past, so the pain went on for around 2 years before the correct action was taken.

Just like the social worker that she misdiagnosed C –‘s child’s sexual abuse and implanted false memories, it is conceivable that the social workers bias meant that child sexual abuse was all she could see when looking at a child with issues, and never considered the actual domestic violence perpetrator. What a sad individual the social worker must be, almost certainly operating outside her area of expertise and inflicting huge damage to children and adults. Unfortunately, the social worker, not qualified to diagnose personality disorders, also saw herself fit to influence the court system and therefore society at large. Quite likely she used techniques similar to that illustrated in the video by Dr Karl. This may be typical of many in the sector that have a heightened awareness of Domestic Violence and choose not to look deeply at the situation or choose not to investigate facts.

The result of the social workers intervention, led to the same result as if the child had been raped. When we look at professional negligence then perhaps we should ask: “If the impact of the crime is the same as rape, should the penalty be similar?” The social worker has clearly caused damage to both C – and the daughter of C -, so from most people’s perspective, multiple damage claims would be appropriate.

Perversion of the Family Law Act 1975 When I read the introduction to “Mums the Word” by the second Chief Justice of the Family Court, his comments were interesting and paraphrase them as:

The system the Family Law Act replaced consisted of one where the person at fault faced losing everything including the children and, in some cases, lies were reportedly told to facilitate an amicable split. The Family Law Act was established to be no fault divorce so families could split amicable, without lying and it was envisaged that would reduce legal costs.

Unfortunately, what was envisaged when the Australian Family Law Act 1975 was established, has not been realised. Over the decades it has transformed into an industry where the one making allegations of fault, such as domestic violence, may get the kids and a bigger slice of the pie. The lies that seek to control the former spouse, children and assets have resulted in the arguments which have made things more protracted, litigious and highly profitable for The Family Separation Industry. The Family Law Act has left children, to which the Act is meant to serve their best interest, in many cases damaged and destitute and research shows when shared parenting is not established, worse off.

The NSW Victims Service is now another player in the industry that is not only paying out before the crime is proven, but when claims found to have been fraudulent continue with payments that may inflict more damage than the crime itself, if it were committed, with complete disregard to the mental health of the people involved. They are effectively allocating our taxpayer funds without any semblance of the principles of natural justice or to phrase another way operating in an unprincipled manner. Judicial sentencing principles

  • Restorative justice that requires that the punishment of the offender should be proportional to that the victim suffers or put more simply “Let the punishment fit the crime”.

  • Sentencing purposes (such as outlined in the current Sentencing Act) include:

  1. Deterrence to deter the offender (specific deterrence) or other people (general deterrence) from committing offences of the same or a similar character

  2. denunciation – to denounce, condemn, or censure the type of conduct engaged in by the offender

  3. community protection – to protect the community from the offender

Clearly, in the Grainger case and for so many other victims of “The Family Separation Industry”, various members of the public service, whether this be analysed through a Restorative of Sentencing purposes perspectives, having premeditated and knowingly caused harm to such an extent, they should be required to serve custodial sentences.

What has happened in the public service with their recruitment and management practices, which are the building blocks of organisational culture that has led to this debacle? This is the essential question as we search for the root cause and assess the broader issues! What will be done to change this toxic and damaging culture? When I look at all that is happening in The Family Separation Industry as described in my book (The Pinball Machine The Family Separation Industry and Parental Alienation), this is definitely not about a single case and rescinding this payout, should only be the start.

282 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All