Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Finland).
Since the year ~2000, I have interviewed fathers (n~120) about their former spouse custodial violence, and the anecdotes fit the general model.
The prevalence of women's custodial conflicts are one of the biggest issues in any society, and is an aspect of relational aggressiveness within the concept of domestic violence which has the following distribution:
- physical domestic violence - women account for slightly more than 50% of incidence and injuries
- Lethal violence is equally unlikely (0.000005) to affect children, men and women
- Psychological violence, relational aggressiveness, is typically a female phenomena.
Ergo. The typical perpetrator of domestic violence is a woman.
Listen to Dr. Elizabeth Bates: Intimate Partner Violence (34 minuter).
Women's custodial violence is mainly bad because children are so vulnerable during their first years of living. Most of the emotional adjustment and cognitive development that will make the child an independent adult, takes place during the first years of living (Baumrind, 1966; Calkins och Keane, 2009; Gopnik, 2016; Hart och Risley, 1995; Moffitt et al. 2001; Österberg, 2004), and there is a father-effect (Rolle et al. 2019; Sethna, 2017). This is followed by social adjustment and more cognitive development, and there is a father-effect (Vieno et al. 2009, 2014; McRay, 2021; Österberg, 2004).
“Mothers with sole custody tend to act as "gatekeepers" after the divorce, and thus control the terms of the relationship with the custodial parent, which means that the child's relationship with the father is limited. Seltzer and Brandreth (1994) believe that it can go so far that the mother completely closes the door, thus making the children's relationship with the father impossible. Reissman (1990) points out that an exclusion of the children's father-relationship can result in the father being forced to withdraw from his parental role, which in turn is assumed to have an inhibiting effect on the child's adjustment" (Österberg, 2004, p. 3).But women can't sustain their custodial conflict alone. Studies of court personnel (judges) in Sweden and the US show that they discriminate children's father relations in at least 75% of the cases by applying a principle called Mater semper certa est (At least, we know who the mother is) (Biringen och Harman, 2018; Elfver-Lindström, 1999; Schiratzki, 2008; Österberg, 2004). The same approach is used by personnel at the social service. Both of these groups, along with police personnel, also apply a feminist approach to domestic violence, where women's domestic violence is attributed to men.
In 2010, when I attended a conference about antisocial behavior at the Swedish Royal Society in Stockholm, I met with Sir Michael Rutter, professor of child psychiatry and the 'father of child psychology'. During his presentation, he dismissed the conference's main hypothesis, that illiteracy has a main effect on antisocial behavior; that means that many people at the conference believed that antisocial behavior could be explained by learning disabilities. Dr. Rutter dismissed that, and during the coffee break, no one wanted to talk to him.
Because Dr Rutter knew my advisor, I stepped forward and presented myself and the result from my masters thesis in social psychology: that children who grow up with both parents or their father have better emotional and social adjustment as well as cognitive development compared to children who grow up with a single mother (Österberg, 2004).
Dr Rutter said that that is exactly how it is (I think he said that I was right on the money). Then he added that its also a hot political potato.
In 2015 I was an expert witness to support a father and a son (~4 years of age) from a mothers custodial conflict. The case had been investigated by personnel at the social service, and they had confirmed that the moder had been physically violent against the little boy, but still they recommended that the mother should get sole custody. The case ended in a very sad way (Österberg, 2015, in Swedish).
Recent case studies presented on this blog (search for [Ytterligare] ett fall ..., in Swedish) show a pattern:
- women who instigate domestic conflicts show signs of Borderline Personality disorder. BPS is usually explained by Complex childhood trauma.
- personnel at the social services use these women as a means to isolate children from their fathers. The people at the social service then recommend the mothers to apply for sole custody.
- Court personnel apply Mater semper certa est in at least 75 % of the cases.
- The effect is devastating for these children's emotional and social adjustment, as well as cognitive development.
“We found that merely sniffing negative-emotion-related odorless tears obtained from women donors induced reductions in sexual appeal attributed by men to pictures of women's faces. Moreover, after sniffing such tears, men experienced reduced self-rated sexual arousal, reduced physiological measures of arousal, and reduced levels of testosterone. Finally, functional magnetic resonance imaging revealed that sniffing women's tears selectively reduced activity in brain substrates of sexual arousal in men” (Gelstein et al. 2011).The paradox is that studies using scientific method, shows that this is really bad for the children, and this will increase the risk for the child to develop antisocial behavior. Yesterday as I was browsing through my TikTok, a case from a ten year old custodial trial showed up. Interestingly, there was a full video about an incident involving a relational aggressive mother and her [abusive] boyfriend, who the mother referred to as daddy!?
Caleb Leverett and Samantha Wimberly have four children. Sometime when the kids were small, they divorced and in that process Samantha instigated a [traditional] custodial conflict to acquire sole custody over the four children. She was successful. This implies that the court personnel had followed the devastating tradition to discriminate against the four children's father relation, which science demonstrates will increase the probability that the children's emotional and social adjustment and cognitive development will be inhibited.
As far as known, Samantha had no known occupation. Instead, she brought a new man into the household referring to him as the children's “daddy”. That person turns out to have been violent against at least two of the children.
Here follows a summary of the father's video from 2013, showing how the mother and her new boyfriend exert pressure on the son who refuses to leave his father's car. The son has also announced that he wants to live with his father.
Out of a house comes a woman with a small child on her arm, followed by a man. The woman is the mother and the man appears to be her new boyfriend. None of them look friendly.
 |
| Samantha's and the new boyfriend's facial expression are very hostile. The little child is brought into their conflict against her son. |
The woman, who is the young teenager's mother - Samantha, doesn't say hello to the teenager or his father. Neither does the new boyfriend. Instead she gives the son what sounds like orders: - Parker honey, now is not the time, you need to come in and we need to talk about this, ok. The kids (his three siblings) told me you want to live with him (note, she doesn't refer to the children's father as 'father', or using their fathers name - Caleb).
The child on her arm may be the new boyfriend's child. In that case, Samantha has four kids with Caleb, the man she instigated a conflict against, and one with the guy who is acting hostile against Caleb's and her oldest son - Parker.
The young boy confirms:- yes mam. Note. This is not something you say to someone you love, but something you say to someone you feel you have to submit to.
The woman replies: - ok, we talk about it inside.
the young boy replies:
- I don't want to get out.
This, of course, should be enough for any person with a normal functioning mind to understand and to accept, but instead Samantha replies:
- I'm sorry? (This is an act of conflict; a conflict emerges when one of two or more persons does not accept disagreement or viewpoint diversity).
The young son repeats:
- I don't want to get out.
She repeats:
- I'm sorry, you're a child and you don't get to make all the decisions. You need to get out now - it's time to get home. The tone of Samantha's voice is now even less friendly, and her facial expression is all but friendly. The boyfriend neither shows any sign of friendliness. Instead, he interferes, asking why the father is using a camera.
One must understand that in nature, mama's new boyfriend is the greatest threat to the off-springs.
The woman repeats her demands, but Parker stands his ground - to stay in the car with his father.
The woman continues by saying that it's no longer visitation with your father, and you need to come home.
There's obviously a disagreement between Samantha and Parker about what home means to him. It's kind of obvious that for Parker, home is where his father is, and that Samantha, due to her conflict, refuses to accept that. Maybe she's aware that if she loses control over the boy, she will also lose money.
Ergo. The young teenager remains with his father, and Samantha sustains her conflict.
Samantha then raises her hostility a notch, making new demands. It sounds like she thinks she owns the boy. She says: - I love you.
Check out the facial expression:
 |
| Samantha verbally claims she loves Parker (Caleb's and her son) but her facial expression shows the opposite. The new boyfriend doesn't look very happy either. The sad thing is that the little child remains in Samantha's arms during her conflict. |
Now remember what development psychology shows: that emotional adjustment and cognitive development takes place during the first years of living (0- 5). During the first years of living, children's auditory perception suck's in all the information it can get. Children between 0-3 years who experience hostile communication in the home environment, lose up to 30 million word perceptions compared to children who experience warm and reasonable communication, and that will manifest in school performance at around 10 years of age (Hart och Risley, 1995).
It's likely that the child on Samantha's arm will be a victim of Samantha's conflict, and that that will hamper the child's emotional adjustment and cognitive development.
Samantha then changes her tone and says that Parker is disrespectful, and then she tries to open the car door. Note. The car is the property of Parker's father.
Parker: - I don't want to get out.
Samantha, who a minute ago claimed that she loved her son, then threatens to call the police.
Parker: - call'm.
Samantha turns to Parker's father and says that he should tell his son to leave the car. But the father says that he will not do that.
She then tells the new boyfriend to call the police, and he submits. She then say:
- Daddy's gonna call the cop. This is of course strange. The new boyfriend isn't Parker's father. He is in the car with Parker. Why does Samantha call her new boyfriend daddy!?
Samantha then says to Parker: - do you think this is the appropriate way to do this?
Parker: - yes.
She then goes on to try to memory-hack the boy, claiming that he has done the same to his father.
Parker: - no!
Parker then reminds her that she has threatened him before. That seems to weaken Samantha, whose voice softens while she denies it.
In the midst of that, she turns to the boyfriend, asking: - are they (the police she called for) on their way?
The boyfriend nods.
She then told the boyfriend:- we need a patrol car. This is just another act of violence, against her own child.
The father says: - he's free to go. He's free to exit the car.
Samantha then turns to the boy's father, asking aggressively if he is drunk or on drugs, demanding him to take a drug test.
That's just another act of violence, showing Samantha's relational aggressiveness.
While Samantha continues to verbally abuse Parker and his father, the little child remains on her arm, making all of Samantha's aggressiveness enter the little child's auditory system.
Then, she hands over the child to the boyfriend, who may be that child's father.
The boyfriend says: - this is completely the wrong way to do this. Note. Also his aggression enters the little child auditory system. Read Hart and Risley (1995) to establish an understanding of the consequences of the child's experience of Samanthas and the boyfriends verbal aggression against Parker and his father.
The woman then moves her sunglasses from her forehand down to her eyes, grabs the door of Caleb's car, and repeats her demand that the boy must go into her house.
She continues to insinuate that the boy's father is a bad influence to him, but refuses to clarify what she means.
This is just relational aggressiveness in a nutshell.
 |
| Samantha pulls down her sunglasses to cover her eyes, then she grabs the door of the car and continues to make condescending statements about Parker's father. |
Conflict is explained by significant release of a hormone called cortisol. The implication is that the brain's hippocampus (there's one in each hemisphere) gets blocked in favor of activity in the Amygdala - the center for human emotions. The implication: fight-flight behavior (Goleman, 2006).
When our ancestors lived on the savannah, fight - flight was key for their survival. In our modern society, the opposite is true.
Samantha continues: - I'm not going to reach into the car and snatch you bald-headed or anything like that, because I firmly believe that Caleb (the father) will shoot me.
Note. The mind does not register negations, like not (Lerher, 2010). The likely implication is that Samantha plans to try to open the door of Caleb's car, intruding on his private property.
The father (with a very calm voice): I'm unarmed.
Samantha repeats: - I firmly believe that he will shoot me, but as your mama, you need to get your little bottom out of this car.
Look at the woman's and the boyfriends facial expressions:
 |
| Samantha sustains her hostile facial expression, and the new boyfriend does nothing to stop her, rather the opposite. One might suspect that, due to Samantha's conflict with the father, she and the new boyfriend probably don't have time to have a sex life. |
Then she suddenly says she wants to hug Parker. Then she says that she's gonna get the orders, which she delegates to the boyfriend who looms away into the house, and threatens that the cops are gonna enforce them.
This flip-flopping between being nice to being hostile, gives associations to bipolar disorder. But learning from forensic psychologist Dr. Shannon Curry's testimony in the Heard - Depp - trial, the manifestation of Samantha's relational aggressiveness is more likely a function of Borderline Personality Disorder. That is consistent with (Zalewski et al. 2014). Addition: Ruffalo (2024).
Samantha then, again, becomes a little friendlier, and then, again, accuses Parker's father of things. And when Parker asks her to name any of the things, Samantha replies: - you name it?
Samantha then continues to argue. And after a while she says: - everyone in that house loves you. Your daddy (the boyfriend) loves you, and I have no doubt Caleb (the father) does it to. And then adds: to the best of his abilities.
Note. Samantha uses framing (Tverky and Kahneman, 1981) to dissociate Parker's father from his obvious role - the father. That's relational aggressiveness.
Then she claims that there's a difference between fathering-a-child, and to parenting-a-child.
That's actually correct, and the evidence shows a father-effect, but no mother-effect, on children's emotional and social adjustment as well as cognitive development, .
Then she makes a subtle threat to the boy.
Parker's father repeats: - he's free to go.
Samantha then becomes more confrontational, but the father, calmly, says that he (Parker) wants to live with him (the father), and that he (the father) wants to help his son.
Samantha says he's not. His only filming to have proof. Then she, again, verbally attacks the father, and it all plays out in front of their son!?
Then Samantha turns to Parker and asks if he wants to wait for the cops, and claims that he is having a humongous tantrum. But Parker, like his father, has been very calm the whole time. The only person who has had a tantrum is Samantha, but she is attributing her rage on Parker's father, and to some extent on Parker.
It's obvious that Parker does not want to go into the woman's house, and that she refuses to respect his will. That is an obvious case of relational aggressiveness.
Samantha then insinuates that she will not bring his stuff to his home!?
Then she, again, turns to Parker and says: - do you remember that I said that family is forever.
It's unclear who took the imitative, but contrary to her claim, Samantha does not live with the four children's father.
Then, again, after some hefty argumentation, she says: that guy knows you love him, daddy and I know you love us.
Again, Samantha uses framing (Tverky and Kahneman, 1981) to dissociate Parker's father from his obvious role - the father. That's relational aggressiveness. And as she repeats it, Parker may fall victim to availability bias (Tversky and Kahneman, 1973) as a function of memory-hacking (Shaw, 2016).
Daddy!?
Then Samantha threatens Parker again: - you're coming home, one way or the other, and claims that she will fight to get him into her house.
- I fight back, the boy says.
Then she again turns to the boy's father and threatens him: - I deal with you later, then asks, why are you encouraging this?
The father replies: - I always help my son. He has expressed to me that he does not want to live with you anymore, and that he does not want to get back to your house.
Samantha replies by again threatening Parker by saying that his father will get in trouble if he does not submit to her demand.
This is really crazy, and even more crazy is that the new boyfriend is just standing there, not protecting Parker from his aggressive mother.
The father then says that he has been clear that he prefers to solve this outside the court.
Samantha, who instigated the conflict by going to court, replies by starting saying “we”, which implies that she has involved the new boyfriend into her conflict. She then accuses the father of being non-communicative, and only texts (she again uses the word we) when he is drunk.
Accusations are part of the repertoire of relational aggressiveness. It happens when the hippocampus is disconnected in favor of Amygdala.
Parker corrects her, stating that his father had two beers.
During all this, the boyfriend is standing watching Parker, and has now crossed his arms.
Note. This is only the first 30 minutes of the video.
~42 minutes. Samantha sustains her conflict, saying to Parker: - I'm your mother, you're being ugly to me, and she tries to open the door of the fathers car.
Remember that Samantha previously stated that she would not try to open the door, because then, according to her, Parker's father will likely shoot her.
Then the boyfriend interferes, saying “we” can get someone for you to talk to. It's not clear what his motives are to interfere.
Parker offers to talk to a judge. The woman declines, saying it's not possible. Parker then says that he will wait for the cops. Samantha, and the boyfriend, almost in concert, says: - they don't know anything.
That's of course odd, because the boyfriend, on Samantha's demand, called the cops.
Parker states the obvious: that the cops then shouldn't be called upon to try to get him out of the car.
That, of course, makes sense.
Samantha then says to Parker's father: - why are you filming (me and other people who enter her household)?
The father says (again, calmly): - I'm on a public street. I know my rights.
Samantha replied: - you're so right.
It's obvious that she cognitively understands that she is wrong.
Samantha turns to Parker demanding him to get out of the car, and then saying: - you don't even know, this is the biggest day in your life, and you don't even know.
He replies: - what's the biggest day of my life?
The woman refused to answer, instead making some theater: - oh my God, you don't know? Parker!
Parker: - what?
She then use the oldest trick in the book by inducing crying, which is a known biological tool women use to trigger compassion (Gelstein et al, 2011)
Then she claims that “they” would show him a car - a Trans Am - in just a minute. “We” are so excited to show it and film it.
This is probably a lie, a desperate move from a relational aggressive woman, who can't give up her conflict.
~50 minutes. The Cops have arrived. It's important to understand that police personnel, like personnel at the social service and at the courts, are biased towards the presumption of motherhood. In fact, we all are, one way or the other.
Samantha says that the father had said that Parker is free to go, and then: “they” are filming me. They?
There's two people in the car. That implies that Samantha accused her son Parker of colluding with his father. The statement is very strange.
The cops ask for ID. The father submits politely, but Samantha starts crying again. Note, this is an act of someone who wants to be in control.
Meanwhile, the boyfriend is standing, reading the court protocol. Why isn't he with his supposed child?
Instead of going to his supposed child, the boyfriend remains at the site, like he is guarding something.
It's worth noting that he is a big guy, but not muscular, just big.
As the woman returns after getting her ID, he puts his foot onto a car's fender (not the fathers car though). It's like he is demonstrating something - guarding a territory. This is working in the animal kingdom, but among humans in a modern society, not so much.
 |
| While Samantha is crying and showing her ID to the police, the boyfriend is sort of making a manifestation. |
The woman continues to cry, and then lays out a lengthy discourse to the police.
The cop asks Parker why he does not want to go to the woman's house. Parker refers to her aggressiveness, and he starts to cry, begging the police:
- please don't force me to go.
Parker says that he doesn't feel safe with her, because she has hit him (physical violence).
Samantha replies that she will spank him again. Parker says, you don't spank, you hit me in the face and you have grabbed my throat and pushed me against the wall.
Parker adds that the boyfriend participated in the assault.
This is of course enough for the police to arrest the woman and the boyfriend, but because of mother-bias, police personnel tend not to intervene against women's domestic violence.
Parker repeats to the police: - please for the love of God, let me leave!
Samantha: - No!
The boy again turns to the police saying: - please don't force me to go, for the love of God!
~56 minutes. The boyfriend, who the boy said participated in the violence against him, is now standing, staring at the boy. And for some reason, the boyfriend is exposing his gentlemen's area towards Parker. What is he trying to say?
 |
| The boyfriend, who had participated in Samanthas' assault on Parker, is standing staring at Parker while exposing his gentlemen's area towards him!? |
The father is comforting his son, padding his shoulder and coaching him to take deep breaths and to be honest. The boy calms down.
Samantha then tries to force herself into the father's car, but Parker fends her off. She ignores him. When he rolled up the window, she refused to take her arm out of the car. The boyfriend and the cop are standing watching, passively.
Parker: - stop. He repeats the phrase, but Samantha refuses to listen. Instead she cries and says: - you're my kid.
But Parker is Caleb's son and Samantha knows that he wants to live with his father. That is Parker's legal right.
The previously violent boyfriend steps in, grabbing the window of Caleb's car. Why is the boyfriend grabbing Parker's fathers car, and why don't the cops intervene to stop Samantha and her boyfriend's violence?
Finally, reason wins over insanity and the police let Parker leave the hostile place to go home with his father.
The happiness didn't last long. Court personnel, a person by the name Denn Whalen, forced Parker back to his abusive mother and her abusive boyfriend (Chidiebue, 2023).
Samantha then did what most relational aggressive women do, she created a distance between the children and their father, by moving to another city. This is a typical manifestation of relational aggressiveness. likely as a function of Borderline Personality Disorder.
Relational aggressiveness is very common; in Finland the Helsingfors Police, Child commissary, and a host for a annual conference about Children's right's say similar thing: Women's relational aggressiveness (psychological violence) is a big problem, it has increased, and 40 % of the Finnish school children reports that have been victims. A similar pattern will likely be found i other countries, including the US.
Parker was an obvious one of the many victims of mother's domestic violence, that usually include her boyfriend. In this video, the father testified that one of his four children, a fifteen years old boy, told him that the mothers boyfriend physically assaulted him so badly that his back hurt.
Remember, the boyfriend was, big, but not muscular, just big. But his violence is of course the mother's responsibility.
Epilogue. Women we instigate conflicts with the fathers they have children with, are probably loaded with cortisol. The implication of that is: (1) stress, (2) belly fat, (3) an increased probability to contract cardio-vascular disease, (4) no time for sex with the new partner. His job is likely to pay her bills, do the dishes, and to guard her. But with no sex, those men get frustrated and dangerous.
Please support the blog via Swish (Sweden) or MobilePay (Finland).
More about my expertise:
Executive coaching for CEOs/managers and workshops to facilitate Organizational Performance, Learning, and Creativity for Problem Solving | Lectures: Nutrition for physical and mental health | Course/lecture: children's emotional and social adjustment and cognitive development | Language training - Swedish | Academy Competency | CV | Teaching skills and experience | Summary of research project | Instagram | Linkedin | YouTube-channel | TikTok | Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment