I have been more than a little horrified by the comments on Troopergate in the blogosphere in the last 12-24 hours or so in response to Neweek's article stating that Palin was "told not to badmouth her sister's ex." For the record, I think that Palin would be a disasterous vice president and pure nightmare of a president. I think her conduct in stonewalling the investigation into Troopergate are disgraceful and indicative that she's made in the Cheney/Bush mode of thwarting the rule of law when it comes to the basic administration of government.
All that said . . . the uncritical eye with which the blogosphere is accepting Judge Suddock's disparaging comments on "dispargment" comes as a
bit of a shock to me. Let me explain -
According to Newsweek, Judge Suddock wrote:
If the court finds it is necessary due to disparagement in the Mat-Su Valley [the area north of Anchorage where Palin and her extended family live], for the children's best interests, it [the court] will not hesitate to order custody to the father and a move into Anchorage.
There is a name for what Judge Suddock was talking about - it's called "parental alienation." It is a theory that has been used predominantly against women who have been victims of domestic violence or who have tried to protect their children from physical or sexual abuse. The concept is explained in StopFamilyViolence.org
Proponents of Parental Alienation portray parental alienation as a destructive family dynamic, usually manifesting during custody battles, in which one parent purportedly turns the child’s sentiments against the other parent. Failure to recognize and correct this dynamic by ensuring that the child has a relationship with both parents, they claim, will cause great harm to the child. Indeed, nothing can be further from the truth. Parental Alienation is a discredited, pseudo-psychological theory whose application in custody determinations has caused great harm to children.
The batterers' bar has been shockingly successful in pushing this theory.
Judge Suddock is not a maverick or great independent thinker - rather, the threats that he made are common place among women who bring up domestic violence issues in court.
Just last week, in New York, such judicial contempt for women who make allegations of abuse (including those who sometimes withdraw the complaints due to a combination of factors, including the horror of testifying and litigation around domestic violence, pressures from family, wish to bring civility to the discussion) led to the passage this past week of Bridget Marks' law which adds the following language to New York Domestic Relations Law § 240:
If a parent makes a good faith allegation based on a reasonable belief supported by facts that the child is the victim of child abuse, child neglect, or the effects of domestic violence, and if that parent acts lawfully and in good faith in response to that reasonable belief to protect the child or seek treatment for the child, then that parent shall not be deprived of custody, visitation or contact with the child, or restricted in custody, visitation or contact, based solely on that belief or the reasonable actions taken based on that belief. If an allegation that a child is abused is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then the court shall consider such evidence of abuse in determining the visitation arrangement that is in the best interest of the child, and the court shall not place a child in the custody of a parent who presents a substantial risk of harm to that child.
The law is named for Bridget Marks who initial lost custody of her twin four year old daughters after making allegations of sexual abuse by the father that the judge did not believe. While Ms. Marks regain custody on appeal, the reality that so many parents (almost always mothers) become more likely to lose custody as alienating parents once they bring up charges of domestic violence or child abuse is a real and frightening phenomena.
It is worth pointing out that the legislature of a numbers of states, including Alaska, have passed legislation on this issue to try to break the pattern of punishing the "alienating parent".
In sum . . . I do not know what happened in Palin's sister's marriage and I 100% believe that allegations of Palin's own official misconduct merit investigation. But . . . the idea that a judge in a custody dispute threatened to transfer custody from Palin's sister to her sister's ex-husband based on the "emotional abuse" of making allegations of domestic violence is somehow proof of Palin's badness is just plain wrong. It is a sorry comment on the ways in which allegations of domestic violence, unless proven to the judge's personal satisfaction (and no, that is not, a specific legal standard) are frequently used against mothers and against the best interests of children.