Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Attacks Upon Family Court Judges

Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle (OMB) is an unqualified, self-serving bad actor. She lacks credibility to offer opinions about Family Court Judges and the professionals whom the Courts rely upon to help and protect alienated children.

Swithin has nonetheless been on a 10-year crusade to unjustifiably defame Family Court judges and professionals with ad hominem attacks. An ad hominem attack is a claim that lacks evidence or proof and has no merit.

Among Swithin’s meritless claims is that judges and professionals are abusing children in order to line their pockets. These ad hominem claims have no basis in reality – they are made up by Swithin.

Here you will learn the reality of Swithin’s true self and the reality of her illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court judges and professionals.

The Reality of Tina Swithin’s Own Child-Exploitive and Child-Abusive Behaviors

Tina Swithin engages in exploitive, child-abusive behaviors that are profoundly harmful to alienated children. Evidence of Swithin’s exploitive behaviors are revealed in her numerous, transparent online social media posts.

Not surprisingly, Swithin seems clueless – or insensitively disregards – that she is telegraphing her child-exploitive behaviors in her posts.

Here are examples of Swithin’s child-exploitive and child-abusive behaviors:

• Swithin interferes with alienated children’s Court-ordered reunification therapy.
• Swithin’s social media posts reveal the faces and identities of minor alienated children (without consent from their legal parent).
• Swithin recruits minor, alienated children to come forward and tell their falsified reunification stories (counseled by Swithin and without consent from their legal parent).

FURTHER READING: Will the Real Tina Swithin Please Stand Up – Experts Inquire

Click below to watch Swithin’s Assault on the Family Court System

HERE IS THE VIDEO: Fraudulent Promises of the Family Court System

Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claims About Family Court Judges Are Projections of Her Exploitation of Children

Swithin is projecting her child-abusive and profit-seeking behaviors onto dedicated Family Court judges and professionals.

Projection is a psychological defense mechanism that occurs when one attributes to another one’s own limitations, attitudes, traits, opinions, mistakes, flaws, behaviors, and so on.

Projection typically originates on an unconscious level and helps us cope with life’s exigencies and serious difficulties. Projection is initially understandable – but only until its unconscious operation is brought to the person’s attention.

When someone persists in projecting behaviors after the projection has been brought to the person’s attention, the projective behaviors are conscious and deliberate. Under these conditions, projection is not understandable nor acceptable.

Swithin’s social media posts are a stream of illusionary ad hominem claims upon our Family Court judges and upon dedicated professionals who work to help and protect alienated children.

Swithin falsely claims that judges and professionals deliberately harm children by giving custody to an abusive parent, are purposefully acting against the child’s best interests, and are motivated exclusively by financial profit.

Swithin does not provide a shred of evidence for her claims. Swithin’s claims are not based in reality. Swithin’s claims are projections her illusions in support of her self-interest and financial self-aggrandizement.

Swithin’s illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court Judges are based entirely upon the “ipse dixit” logical fallacy – “It is true because I said so.”

FURTHER READING: Larson Findings of Facts & Swithin’s Interference

Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claim that Judges Give Children to Their Abusive Parents

During her ten year crusade against the Family Court system, Swithin has repeatedly made the illusionary claim that judges intentionally transfer children from a protective parent to an abusive parent. Swithin fails to back her claim with credible evidence.

Swithin fails to provide evidence of a single alienation case in which the Court had made a finding of abuse against the parent to whom the Court subsequently transferred custody.

Before a child abuse allegation can have merit, the following minimum criteria must be met:

• Understanding of the total clinical picture.
• Consideration of the findings of the Court regarding the abuse allegation and the family dynamics.
• The perspective of both parents regarding the abuse allegation and the family dynamics.
• Ruling out for influence and programming of the child.
• Relying upon the scientific method to find for the abuse.

None of Swithin’s posts about the alienation cases she criticizes contain even one of the above criterion let alone all these necessary criterion.

On the other hand, Courts have removed custody from alienating parents because they are committing child psychological abuse, domestic violence, and domestic violence by proxy of alienated children.

FURTHER READING: Alienating Behaviors – Domestic Violence Upon the Child

Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claim That Family Court Judges Take Kickbacks From Professionals

Swithin’s illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court judges and professionals are motivated by the need and desire for sensationalism. Her claims are not motivated by child protection.

Swithin accuses Family Court judges of taking kickbacks from professionals in the fictitious “alienation industry.” Swithin has manufactured this illusionary entity.

Swithin spreads the illusionary ad hominem claim that Family Court judges have entered into a conspiracy with professionals. Swithin claims that the purpose of the conspiracy is to line the pockets of judges and professionals.

These outrageously false claims lack proof or evidence. These are more of Swithin’s illusionary claims against those who work to protect alienated children.

Swithin fails to provide a shred of evidence for her conspiracy illusion because there can be no evidence for an illusion. Swithin is instead projecting onto judges and professionals her own behaviors to aggrandize her pockets.

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin on Why Our Family Court System Needs to Change

List of Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claims About Family Court Judges

Swithin’s TikTok video claiming Family Court judges are “misogynistic” and biased against mothers:

HERE IS THE VIDEO: Let’s talk about family court judges

Swithin has made the following illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court judges on her social media accounts:

• Judges ignore the best interest of the child.
• Judges deliberately place children at risk.
• Judges collude with professionals for self-interest and financial purposes.
• Judges discriminate against mothers.
• Judges deliberately remove children from a loving parent.
• Judges deliberately give custody to an abusive parent.
• Judges are ignorant of and intentionally oblivious to domestic violence.
• Judges are disinterested in learning about domestic violence.
• Judges send children to traumatic “camps” to reunify with an abusive parent.
• Judges are callous, uneducated, insensitive, and biased.
• Judges are misogynistic, especially female judges, who have internalized the misogyny to be accepted into the “old boys club.

FURTHER READING: The Truth About Family Court with Tina Swithin

Some of Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Postings About Family Court Judges

Here Swithin is recruiting the news media to post false horror stories about Family Court rulings:

Here Swithin accuses Family Courts of being corrupt, abusive, and unregulated.

FURTHER READING: Episode 241 Family Court Awareness with Tina Swithin

In the video below, Swithin accuses Family Courts of engaging in the “human trafficking of children.”

In the below video, Swithin defames Family Court judges by accusing them of engaging in “human trafficking of children” by sending them to so-called “reunification camps. Swithin made up the label up “reunification camps” to smear the safe and effective reunification programs relied upon Courts to remedy the abuse of parental alienation.

In this video, Swithin shows of a video of children hysterically screaming and violently resisting being taken to Swithin’s “reunification “camps. Swithin fails to reveal that she had counseled how the children should behave.

Swithin further shows me reporting on the truth about my reunification “therapeutic vacation” program known as Turning Points for Families (TPFF). Swithin has absolutely no first hand knowledge about the TPFF program but nonetheless accuses me in this video of reporting inaccurately about its safety and effectiveness.

HERE IS THE VIDEO ENTITLED: Human Trafficking in Family Courts

Here Swithin claims Family Courts are weaponized against Mothers:

In this OMB post about Family Courts, Swithin claims, “My right as a mother to protect my children is overshadowed by a flawed system”:

1/23/2024 OBM website post: “Our system [Family Court System] needs to change.  Our system needs to start protecting our children….I also know that the system tells me that I will be the one violating court orders. What I do know: The system that claims it protects my children is broken. My right as a mother to protect my children is overshadowed by a flawed system.”

Here Swithin claims Family Courts are an “Institutional betrayal”:

Swithin claims in the video below, “The family court system is abusive” and she is recruiting to publicize stories of uncorroborated Family Court failures. Swithin claims, “There is a disconnect between family court and other judicial systems. There is no regulation or checks and balances.”

VIDEO ENTITLED: Failed by Family Court System:

Here Swithin claims that Family Court judges are “not pro-children”:

FUTHER READING: Harmful Lies Perpetuated by Tina Swithin of One Mom’s Battle

Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Ad Hominem Claims About Reunification Therapists

Swithin hypocritically projects her own lack of qualifications upon licensed reunification therapists. She claims reunification therapists are money-hungry, unaccountable, and unregulated for their therapeutic services. Nothing could be further from reality.

The truth about reunification therapists:

• Reunification therapists are licensed mental health clinicians by their state licensing boards and must thereby comply with their state’s ethical and treatment standards.
• Reunification therapists are accountable to the Courts that had appointed them to provide reunification services.
• Reunification therapists are providing a highly specialized, highly successful, and highly sought reunification service.
• Acquiring the specialized skills to provide safe and effective reunification therapy requires many years of intensive training, education, and experience.
• Being exceptionally qualified professionals, reunification therapists are entitled to be compensated commensurate with the time, effort, and expense they had invested to acquire the expertise to successfully provide reunification therapy.

Tina Swithin’s Projections onto Reunification Therapists of Her Unqualified Standing in Parental Alienation Cases

Swithin’s pursuit of sensationalism lavishly lines her pockets and increases the number of her admirers. Follow her numerous online posts that advertise her unlicensed and unregulated “fee for service” counseling services.

Tina Swithin herself is unlicensed and unaccountable for the “fee for service” counseling she offers and about which she noticeably posts. These posts are more of Swithin’s projections onto therapists of false claims of being money-grabbers.

I barely scratched the surface in researching the price tags that Swithin places on her unlicensed and unaccountable “fee for service”counseling.

Swithin’s “fee for service” counseling includes, but are not limited to, divorce coach, one on one consulting services for parental alienation, Family Court Advocate to defend against Family Court Abuses, Coffee with Tina counseling services, Advice offered in her books for sale, and more.

Swithin claims to service clients all over the world. Take note:

Swithin is projecting onto judges and professional her own greedy behaviors to line her pockets at the expense of the alienated children she is exploiting.

Tina Swithin’s Illusionary Distortions of the Courts’ Findings in Alienation Cases

Swithin perpetuates her ad hominem attacks upon judges by distorting and misrepresenting the Court’s findings and rulings.

Swithin would instantly “go out of business” if the Court’s findings and complete record were made public in the alienation cases she rails about. This is why Swithin never posts the Court’s complete record.

In the rare situation in which Swithin posts Court transcripts, it is when she has selectively chosen one-sided and uncorroborated information in order to mislead.

Swithin fails to post the Court’s finding of alienation. Swithin does not post the Court’s finding that the alienating parent was found to be committing child abuse. Swithin does not post the Court’s finding that the alienated parent is a safe, protective parent.

The Inevitable and Unenviable Dilemma for Family Court Judges

Family Court judges must weigh the evidence and testimonies that are presented to the Court by the witnesses: the parties themselves, the parties’ personal witnesses, the experts whom the Court has appointed, the experts who have been hired by one of the parties, and the other professionals in the case.

Courts generally have held protracted hearings and trials on alienation cases spanning many years. Some of my cases had lasted 10 years and even longer. In these cases, Courts have heard and considered a massive amount of evidence and testimonies. No stone had been left unturned.

The testimony that the Court must consider is only as good as the knowledge, skills, and experiences of the experts providing testimony and the accuracy of the other witnesses’ testimonies.

Steven G. Miller, MD – physician, cognitive scientist, and alienation specialist – repeatedly pointed out that alienation is one of the most -if not the most – complex and counterintuitive clinical conditions he has ever encountered in both medicine and in mental health.

Judges who oversee an alienation case have an incredibly difficult job sorting out exceedingly contradicting testimonies from the parties themselves, from their lay and fact witnesses, and from the experts.

Evidence is frequently contradictory and subject to widely divergent interpretation by the experts.

It is been my experience in my more than 1000 expert testimonies, and from my several thousand forensic document reviews, that judges diligently endeavor to sort out all the contradictory evidence and testimonies so as to make decisions in the best interests of the child.

Judges are human, so they of course make mistakes and some may have biases like everyone else. The judicial system is not perfect. But what I have learned from my experiences in so many alienation trials is that judges tend to be cautious in their rulings.

When judges do make mistakes in an alienation case, it is usually by missing or not understanding how truly abusive alienation is to the child. Decisions in these situations tend to give more recognition to the position of the alienating parent.

They do not capriciously remove children from the alienating parent – the parent with whom the child appears to be healthily bonded but is not.

Judges instead typically order one traditional reunification intervention after another with the child remaining in the care and custody of the alienating parent.

It is generally only after the failure multiple traditional reunification interventions that Courts order one of the more intensive programs. At that point, the Court orders the protective separation of the child from the unremitting abusive alienating parent.

FURTHER READING: Tina Swithin’s Behaviors Are Harmful to Alienated Children

Conclusion

The consequence of Swithin’s illusionary ad hominem claims about Family Court Judges and reunification therapists is profoundly harmful to alienated children.

Some judges have been intimidated by her attacks and have consequently failed to do a protective removal of severely alienated children from their unrelenting, abusive alienating parent. The child abuse is thereby being perpetuated.

Other judges have failed to order one of the safe and effective intensive reunification programs that Swithin also defames with illusionary claims.

The time is long overdue to hold Swithin accountable for her meritless, illusionary claims about the overwhelming number of dedicated Family Court judges who diligently endeavor to render decisions in the best interest of the child.