Within the labyrinth of family courts, a chilling paradox persists: mothers, who should be lauded for their courage in denouncing the abuse suffered by their children, often find themselves exposed to paroxysmal institutional violence. These women, often referred to as “protective mothers,” see their role as protective parents distorted and their rights restricted by institutions meant to ensure justice and safety. But how can processes designed to protect sometimes reproduce the very mechanisms of abuse they are supposed to combat—or even generate new ones?
In France, according to the Independent Commission on Incest and Sexual Violence Against Children (CIIVISE), nearly 160,000 children fall victim to sexual violence every year. Among them, a staggering majority (81%) endure abuse within their immediate family. This already appalling reality becomes even more troubling when illuminated by the testimonies of protective mothers. In their attempts to report these crimes and ensure their children’s safety, these women encounter a judicial system where 76% of complaints are dismissed without further action.
Spain mirrors similar mechanisms to those observed in France, where mothers denouncing intrafamilial abuse face institutional violence.
In England, a similar dynamic emerges. A 2021 Women’s Aid investigation revealed that the principle of “contact at all costs” dominates judicial decisions, even when evidence of domestic violence is present.
In Belgium, the use of parental alienation concepts in courts has also been criticized for lacking scientific grounding.
The use of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), although scientifically discredited by numerous international institutions, remains a frequent tool in family courts to undermine protective mothers.
Similarly, the concept of loyalty conflict, as defined by De Becker, is used to pathologize the relationship between a child and their protective parent, particularly in cases of intrafamilial violence.
Institutional violence refers to the dynamics of power and control exerted by institutions through practices or policies that, intentionally or otherwise, invalidate victims’ narratives and perpetuate their trauma. Institutional gaslighting, for example, describes a process where victims’ experiences are systematically questioned or minimized, creating an oppressive environment that exacerbates initial suffering. These institutional mechanisms, often invisible, reinforce the abuse patterns already present in family contexts.
The prolonged exposure to complex judicial procedures, where their voices are discredited, and their protective efforts criminalized, constitutes a form of psychological torture.
Despite the steady increase in reports of sexual violence against minors—doubling between 2011 and 2021—conviction rates remain alarmingly low: 3% for sexual abuse cases and only 1% for incest cases.
Protecting children and supporting the mothers who defend them must become an absolute priority. Together, we can transform oppressive institutions into steadfast safeguards against all forms of violence.
Source: Institutional Abuse: When Protective Mothers Become Victims of the System