Problem two he claims is that Holly has made a variety of violence claims in several courts and they all have found against her. Again this means nothing as women in today's culture are very often found not credible due to the emotional aspect of these issues.
Batterers naturally strive to turn mediation and GAL processes to their advantage, through the use of various tactics. Perhaps the most common is to adopt the role of a hurt, sensitive man who doesn't understand how things got so bad and just wants to work it all out "for the good of the children." He may cry in front of the mediator or GAL and use language that demonstrates considerable insight into his own feelings. He is likely to be skilled at explaining how other people have turned the victim against him, and how she is denying him access to the children as a form of revenge, "even though she knows full well that I would never do anything to hurt them." He commonly accuses her of having mental health problems, and may state that her family and friends agree with him. The two most common negative characterizations he will use are that she is hysterical and that she is promiscuous. The abuser tends to be comfortable lying, having years of practice, and so can sound believable when making baseless statements. The abuser benefits to the detriment of his children if the court representative fails to look closely at the evidence - or ignores it - because of his charm. He also benefits when professionals believe that they can "just tell" who is lying and who is telling the truth, and so fail to adequately investigate.
Excerpt from Lundy Bancroft UNDERSTANDING THE BATTERER IN CUSTODY AND VISITATION DISPUTES
In other words Holly was found even less credible with every allegation she raised. Just because this happens in court (according to a leading domestic violence expert) does not mean that a woman (specifically Holly) is lying about abuse. It could very well mean that Mark has played the abuser card, managed to woo the evaluators into his corner by doing as Bancroft has stated. He wowed them with his concern and knowledge and his care for the children 'appeared' to be that of a good father. Just because he appears to be a good father does not make him a good father. Glenn also states that any litigant is able to get an RO simply for whoing up. This is not true at all. In my own case I have attempted to get 2 RO's after the original permanent one was dropped by the judge and I could not even get a temporary order. In fact, in the second order I was told that obnoxious behavior is not against the law. So point two has now been countered. It is highly possible that due to Holly's naivete of court procedures and that the fact that once a court finds against you more than 2 or 3 times, any further reports will be viewed in the same light. Kind of a reverse boy who cried wolf if you will. She cried once without enough documentation (you see courts want proof even though this is civil court and only a preponderance of the allegations should have to be proven, many times the courts and the officers of the courts rely on the standard for criminal courts - beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is possible in all cases of dv due to the very hidden nature of this crime).
Glenn then states that Zachary sustained the alleged injury not from his father, but at an amusement park. He sustained TWO (repeat 2, not 1 but 2!!!!) head injuries. The first was at the amusement park, but the second was by his father. So here we go again with leaving ut parts of the truth and only saying what you think the reader should hear (talk about your censorship).
Glenn then says issue number 4 is that a reputable child psychiatrist disputes Holly's claims. he (the psychiatrist says this because the children appear to be doing well under the father's care while the father had custody. Do you the reader honestly think that Mark would be kicking the children's dog, slamming their heads into walls, punching and shoving Holly with a psychiatrist present. Also we must look at this logically. We are talking about 2 young children here. What if this scenario was present instead. Dad abuses child and then tells child, if you tell on me they will take you away from me, your mom is crazy so you won't go with her. Then father attempts to woo child by buying child something or promising to not abuse. This is typical of your batterer and the honeymoon, escalation and abuse cycles. The abuser escalates in his anger and violence until you have the actual incidents of violence. he then enters into the honeymoon phase. If an adult victim can be wowed by this and think things will change, how is a child to react? Jennifer and Zachary were quite probably scared out of their wits. The issues of child abuse and domestic violence have been around since creation, only to be recognized as such in the 20Th century. In fact, child abuse was not viewed as a crime and the first documented case of child abuse was brought on by the ASPCA in the late 1800's. However, the system is far from perfect. In reading Jennifer's website, we see that Zachary spoke to his therapist/psychiatrist about his fears of his father. And yet again we have a professional who cannot see the writing on the wall. Jennifer and Zachary have both disproved Glenn on this point clearly and without a doubt. I will now drop this due to their requests. Future posts will not be entertained. I wish Jennifer all the best. I wish Zachary all the best. I wish Holly all the best. I also pray that God puts a veil of protection over this family and keeps them safe from the harm that might occur from these rabid father's rights groups. These groups and those who run them really should get a life.