Family Court Is a Taxpayer-Funded Hostage System: How Children Are Endangered to Keep Women Captive
Original Article: https://open.substack.com/pub/womenscoalition/p/mom-lashes-out-at-family-court-at?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
A toddler is dead after years of documented warnings.
For years, while her child was being beaten, his mother documented injuries, reported abuse, named specific threats, contacted police, returned to court again and again, and warned judges in plain language that her child would be seriously injured or killed if exposure continued.
For years, the danger was explicit.
For years, the court had notice.
For years, the system compelled exposure anyway.
The father was given full custody.
Then the father beat the child to death.
This Was Not a Tragedy. It Was a Process.
This death was not unforeseeable.
It was not sudden.
It was not an accident.
It followed a familiar, repeatable sequence:
- A mother reports violence or credible threat
- Evidence is documented over time
- Authorities are notified repeatedly
- Family Court reframes danger as “conflict”
- The mother is accused of obstruction or alienation
- Custody or unsupervised access is expanded
- The child is injured or killed
This sequence appears again and again—across jurisdictions, across years, across cases that never meet each other except in outcome.
Foreseeability was established.
Notice was continuous.
The risk was known.
The result was delivered anyway.
Family Court Uses Children as Hostages
Family Court is structured to produce compliance.
When a woman leaves a violent or dangerous man, the system does not prioritize safety. It imposes leverage.
That leverage is the child.
Women are told, explicitly or implicitly:
- Comply, or lose your child.
- Cooperate, or be punished.
- Resist, and custody will be transferred.
Children become living hostages, exchanged to enforce obedience.
This is not metaphorical.
This is operational.
The threat is clear: protect yourself or protect your child — you cannot do both.
The Solomonic Test — and Who Is Failing It
There is an ancient story often misunderstood: the so-called Solomonic test.
Two adults claim a child. The authority proposes to divide the child in half. One claimant agrees. The other refuses, saying the child should live even if she loses him. The child is given to the one who prioritizes the child’s survival.
This was never a story about women competing.
It was a story about who would allow harm to prevail.
Family Court reenacts this test every day — and fails it.
Again and again, the parent who says “my child will be harmed” is punished.
Again and again, the parent who demands access regardless of danger is rewarded.
Again and again, courts choose formal symmetry over survival.
By their own outcomes, the system is failing the Solomonic test throughout — and the data shows it.
The Data Exists. It Is Being Ignored.
This is not conjecture.
This is not anecdote.
Women advocates are collecting data:
- Court-ordered contact preceding child injury or death
- Ignored warnings documented in filings
- Patterns of custody transfer following maternal resistance
- Repeated use of “alienation” to neutralize abuse claims
This data exists in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and beyond.
It is compiled by:
- Mothers
- Women advocates
- Family members of dead children
Not institutions.
Not courts.
Not media organizations.
Despite its scale, this data does not reach the public narrative.
What Women Are Seeing — Explicitly
Women do not learn about this system from headlines.
They learn from each other.
On social media, women are seeing:
- Children beaten during court-ordered visits
- Children tortured while mothers begged courts to intervene
- Children killed after judges forced continued contact
These are not isolated posts.
They are not rare.
Women report seeing three, four, sometimes more cases a day from different regions, with the same structure and the same ending.
Custody orders.
Judges’ names.
Timelines of ignored warnings.
Hospital records.
Obituaries.
This is mass pattern recognition, not hysteria.
Media Silence Is Structural
The absence of coverage is not proof of absence.
Family Court operates behind seals, gag orders, and jurisdictional fragmentation. Deaths are reported as individual crimes, stripped of the legal context that produced them.
The public is shown the endpoint — not the process.
Women see the entire chain.
Forced Exposure Is Forced Return
In some cases, this system succeeds in its implicit aim: forcing women back into relationships they tried to escape.
Women report staying with violent men because leaving would mean:
- Losing custody
- Exposing children to unsupervised danger
- Triggering retaliation through the court
The message is clear: remain compliant, or risk your child’s life.
That is not family law.
That is coercion.
When the System Guarantees Harm, Rationality Changes
When a woman knows—through repeated experience, data, and pattern recognition—that the system will not protect her child, rationality does not disappear. It recalibrates.
This is the part the court refuses to confront.
A rational actor seeks the option that minimizes irreversible loss. In this context, the irreversible loss is a dead child.
Family Court removes lawful protective options one by one:
- Reporting abuse results in punishment
- Documenting danger results in loss of credibility
- Seeking enforcement results in retaliation
- Withholding a child to protect them results in custody transfer
- Compliance results in continued exposure to known violence
At the end of this sequence, women are not choosing between “good” and “bad” options.
They are choosing between different forms of guaranteed harm.
That is not free choice.
That is not consent.
That is coercion under threat.
What Women Are Actually Being Forced To Do
Women in this position report converging on the same set of conclusions—not because they share ideology, but because they share outcomes.
The rational responses available within the law narrow to:
- Total compliance, accepting risk of injury or death
- Staying with the abuser to maintain surveillance and reduce exposure
- Living under constant threat of court retaliation
- Accepting that documentation will not save their child
None of these are protective strategies.
They are damage-mitigation strategies inside a hostile system.
When a legal structure guarantees that protective behavior worsens outcomes, it trains rational actors to abandon the system’s rules entirely.
That is not extremism.
That is survival logic.
The Dangerous Conclusion the System Is Producing
Here is the indictment the courts will not face:
When institutions consistently side with known danger, they teach women that legality and safety are opposites.
When every lawful attempt to protect a child fails, the system itself communicates that survival lies outside its boundaries.
I am not advocating violence.
I am naming the conclusion the system is manufacturing.
If you build a structure in which:
- Warnings are punished
- Evidence is ignored
- Danger is rewarded
- Death is the predictable outcome
You do not get compliance forever.
You get desperation.
And desperation is not a moral failing of women.
It is an indictment of the system that put them there.
Follow the Money
This system is funded by women’s labor and women’s taxes.
Public funds maintain courts that:
- Compel exposure to known danger
- Override documented warnings
- Disclaim responsibility for predictable outcomes
Women are paying for the machinery that endangers their children.
This Is Not Broken. It Is Functioning.
A broken system fails randomly.
This system produces consistent, repeatable outcomes:
- Women coerced
- Children endangered
- Responsibility diffused
- Accountability avoided
Family Court does not malfunction.
It performs.
And what it performs is captivity enforced through child endangerment.
End This
No reform that leaves this structure intact will work.
A system that requires children to be harmed to maintain adult control is illegitimate.
This is not about individual bad actors.
It is about a design that treats children as leverage and women as expendable.
The evidence exists.
The warnings were given.
The outcomes were foreseeable.
Children are dead.
Children are being tortured and killed.
And institutions are responsible for the structures that made those deaths predictable.
We are documenting.
No one is above the law.
Comments ()