Augustinos Zenakos on mandatory joint custody and parental alienation

"Every time we protest against the mandatory joint custody law, someone shows up to explain to us that joint custody is a good thing, that the child needs both parents, that many dads today want to have a more active role in raising their children, and above all that requiring mothers to raise their children exclusively is patriarchal.

After thanking them for this explanation, both personally and on behalf of my fellow activists, many of whom undoubtedly need yet another lesson on what patriarchy means, male guidance on what to fight for and what not to, an analysis of what feminism is, and instruction on the countless mysteries that the female mind struggles to process, let me say once again the following:

The child's right to be raised by both parents is recognized in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and I don't know anyone fighting against the Tsiaras Law who doesn't support it.
The problem with the Tsiaras Law is that it doesn't protect this right. Nor was the intention of the lobby that pushed for the passage of this law to protect this right.

The Tsiaras Law has two basic, interconnected functions:

First, it constitutes yet another - the strongest so far - legal weapon in the hands of abusers, overwhelmingly men, though not exclusively, allowing them to continue abusing their wives and children even after the dissolution of the marriage.

Second, it has unleashed the biases of some judicial officials who want women to be "hysterical" and "vindictive" and children to be unreliable and incapable of expressing their fear or wishes.

The Tsiaras Law is not only not a child-centered law, but a law that violates another basic right of children: the right to be heard and to have their will respected by the authorities, a right also recognized by the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Because, of course, children's right to be raised by both parents must be weighed against their right to life, safety, and protection from abuse.
This law, in practice, nullifies this right every day in the courts, forcing children into contact, overnight stays, or even cohabitation with those they report as their abusers.

And it confronts mothers with a brutal dilemma: if they protect their child, as is their duty, and refuse to hand them over to their abuser, then at some point they will be called upon to serve the prison sentences that courts hand out for violations of court decisions, and their child will end up fully in the hands of their abuser, now with sole custody. Or the child will end up in an institution - as we have heard juvenile prosecutors and judges threaten - where, of course, they have an increased risk of being abused.

Moreover, the Tsiaras Law in practice allows the continuation of the abuse of women by turning children into a back door through which the abuser maintains control over his victim.

This law is not, in a general and vague sense, an endorsement of the good of raising children jointly. It was born and lives within a specific ideological space: that of the "men's rights" movements, i.e., those reactionary movements that demand the restoration of the "traditional family," the restriction and reversal of feminist achievements. A conservative, tradition-obsessed, deeply misogynistic ideological space.

The Tsiaras Law is not a law for the modern dad who wants to participate in raising his child. It is a law for the dad who is enraged because his status as head of the household is questioned, because they dared to raise their heads, because they don't tolerate his violence with the submission he believes they owe him. It is a law that allows him to put "the bitches and their bastards" back in their place.
This is evident from the basic ideological frameworks that shaped the law and that inspire the organized groups that pushed for its passage:

First, the pseudo-theory of "parental alienation," a piece of quackery that has not only been completely debunked as to its scientific validity, but has also been shown to be the most convenient tool for ensuring that reports of child abuse and domestic violence are not adequately investigated and are dismissed. "Parental alienation" is the quintessence of DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender).

And don't let me hear that I supposedly don't accept the obvious, that many parents put their children in the middle during divorces, that they badmouth the other parent, and so on. We're not talking about that. "Parental alienation" is not a colloquial expression for every conflictual divorce where children suffer from their parents' excesses. This happens, and it is terrible, but "parental alienation" is a specific "theory" with a specific history, and from its invention to this day it has constituted a courtroom tool, designed to adorn the defense arsenal of men accused of abuse.

Second, the myth of "false allegations" - whether of domestic violence or child sexual abuse - and indeed of their supposed "increase." A myth propagated by these groups, flooding the internet with articles referring to "studies" that supposedly prove it. Except that no such studies exist. These things are not measured in Greece; the studies literally do not exist. They are measured, however, in other countries, and there they show, on the one hand, that it is extremely difficult to define what a "false" allegation even is (One not proven in criminal court? One based on criminally proven perjury? What are we measuring? And where do we find it?), and on the other hand, to the extent that we acknowledge the limitations of the methodology, that "false" allegations are extremely rare. These things, of course, are for serious people, not for certain Greek judges who have swallowed the myth whole because it suits their preconceptions, and who have had it repeated to them by 4-5 psychiatrists paid by defendants accused of abuse.

And the mere fact that, at the very moment women are being killed by their current or former partners - having already sought help from the authorities and having been left unprotected - some people talk about "false allegations" should trouble every moral person.

And of course it is no coincidence that this myth of "false allegations" gains momentum in the wake of #MeToo, when for the first time the internet filled with women's stories about the violence they endure and the fear they are forced to live their lives with.

And here, as with "parental alienation," the undertaking is ideological: we're not talking about balancing tests, presumptions of innocence, the bar for criminal proof, and other such substantive matters that require not only research tools but, above all, basic recognition of the proven scale of gender-based violence and child sexual abuse. We are talking about an attempt to erase a phenomenon from the public sphere, to destroy the awareness that half the population is terrorized and/or abused at some stage of their life because of their gender, that one in five children suffers some form of sexual abuse, and that the perpetrators are, in the overwhelming majority of cases, men. We are talking about the systematic nullification of everyday, widespread abuse beneath an enraged cry of "The whore is lying."

Third, "contact at any cost," in other words the crude notion that "just because he beats his wife doesn't mean he's a bad father." That is, the idea that a child seeing their father (in reality: the father's right to see his child) has absolute priority, one that nullifies any act for which that father is being reported, be it the abuse of the mother and/or the child.

Look, we, the fellow activists fighting against the Tsiaras Law, maintain that even parents who are bad - most often because they are poor, but also due to mental health issues, addiction, delinquency, etc. - should be supported by welfare services so that they can become better parents and their children can grow up with them - instead of, as happens now, the state summarily taking their children away and sending them to institutions, until it hands over the most "desirable" of them for foster placements that are unreservedly converted into adoptions.

We are committed to recognizing and fighting for the right of children to grow up even with parents who need help in order to be parents. And we believe it is the state's obligation to provide them with this help.
Abuse, however - violence - is off the table. This should be obvious.

And to make this clear, so there is no misunderstanding: any physical or psychological violence is condemnable. However, there are certain forms that stem from causes like those mentioned above, from which it is possible, with the right support, for a parent to be freed, to abandon, to "find their way."

Systematic domestic violence and child sexual abuse do not belong to these forms. The risk to the victims is far too great. And this should be obvious.
In other countries, we have already mourned children murdered by their fathers during "contact at any cost." Must we mourn here too?

So every time someone appears to explain to us what a good thing it is for both parents to raise the child, or how modern dads change diapers, tell bedtime stories, sterilize breast pumps, and sit with their kids memorizing the rivers of Fthiotida, I find myself wondering: do they truly not know what we're talking about?

Don't they know that we are talking about women and children being crushed by the weapons that Greek legislation and Greek authorities hand out every day to criminals so they can continue torturing their victims?

But then I remember that when the Tsiaras Law was being passed, the diversion tactic was exactly this: the warnings of those who knew what we were talking about were drowned out in a general "discussion" about the benefits of joint custody and shared parenting, about the patriarchy that forces women to raise the children, and about modern parenthood. A "discussion" fueled not only by the organized groups with their propaganda about supposed "equal rights for moms and dads," or their natural fellow travelers, nostalgics of every stripe for the glorious past of the "traditional family," but also by quite a few progressives, leftists, and anarchists who said, "well, all things considered, Tsiaras and the right-wingers are bad, but joint custody is a good thing and women must be liberated from patriarchy."

And when I remember that, my question is answered."

Augustinos Zenakos is a journalist, a member of the investigative journalism team The Manifold