top of page

THE ABSENT PARENT CIC — FULL MISSION
STATEMENT (MASTER VERSION)

OUR MISSION

1. Raise Awareness Through Publishing, Storytelling & Education

• Publish books, reports, articles and digital media exposing the silver bullet tactic in divorce and family-court proceedings.
• Share lived experience to show how this tactic works in practice, the harm it causes, and its long-term effects on children and targeted parents.
• Educate parents, professionals and the public about post-separation abuse, coercive control and parental alienation by proxy through clear examples, evidence and data.

2. Expose the Harm Caused by the Silver Bullet Tactic

• Reveal how emergency allegations (such as non-molestation orders) can be misused to obtain immediate legal advantage.
• Highlight the psychological, emotional and financial fallout for children and the unfairly targeted parent.
• Show how victims are often mislabelled or dismissed when they try to speak out.

3. Improve Professional Understanding,  Guidance & Accountability (CAFCASS, Section 7 & Beyond)

• Support CAFCASS, social workers, mediators and legal professionals in recognising coercive control, emotional abuse, child contact refusal and parental alienation (including by proxy).
• Encourage CAFCASS to follow their own Section 7 guidance, particularly where a child’s rejection of a parent may reflect coercion, coaching or emotional manipulation.
• Promote deeper scrutiny where “child refusal” coincides with:
◦ abrupt behavioural shifts,
◦ unsupported allegations,
◦ financial leverage,
◦ blocked contact or repeated breaches of orders.

• Promote HLE Law — Honest, Logical and Evidence-based decision-making — at every stage of professional assessment and judicial reasoning.
• Document and challenge HLE (Harm through Legalised Exclusion): when unsupported allegations, flawed assessments, or procedural delays cause a safe parent to be removed from a child’s life.

• Encourage professionals to record:

Donate or Sponsor

  • Every contribution helps keep this mission alive.
    We’re not backed by corporate money or government support — we rely on the people who believe in change.

  • Whether it’s a one-time gift or an ongoing sponsorship, your support helps us fight for transparency, accountability, and justice.
    ◦ inconsistencies between allegations and evidence,
    ◦ patterns of obstruction,
    ◦ emotional manipulation,
    ◦ the impact of prolonged loss of contact on the child.

  • Why this matters — my experience included
    When I sought to enforce repeated breaches of the Child Arrangements Order, I was met with a multi-year block on further court applications.     When I attempted to appeal, I was warned that this block could be extended even further, creating a chilling effect designed to deter legitimate challenges. When I attempted to appeal, I was warned that this block could be extended even further, creating a chilling effect designed to deter legitimate challenges. These events reflect systemic blind spots that enable Harm through Legalised Exclusion (HLE) to go unrecorded and uncorrected.

4. Gather Evidence & National Data — The  “CATCHING THE UNICORNS” Survey

Judicial Behaviour, Post-Separation Abuse & The Silver Bullet Tactic in Divorce

• Conduct a UK-wide survey collecting lived-experience data from parents and professionals.
• Map patterns across allegations, safeguarding decisions, delays, blocked contact, breaches and long-term no-contact.
• Publish anonymised reports to improve judicial training, professional guidance and public understanding.

5. Promote Better Outcomes for Children & Families

Demonstrate how misused safeguarding tools and tactical allegations can sever a child’s bond with a safe parent.

Highlight how schools, relatives and professionals may inadvertently enable coercive or alienating behaviours when guidance is unclear.

Equip families and professionals with knowledge to support safe, stable and healthy co-parenting.

6. Inform Improvements in Law, Practice & Training

When the aeroplane was invented, the optimist built the aircraft — and the pessimist built the parachute.
Our protective laws were created by optimists, rightly designed to safeguard genuine victims of harm.
But the family-court system has not yet built the parachute — the safeguards needed to prevent those same laws from being misused.

Use lived experience, evidence and research to inform improvements in judicial training, guidance and safeguarding checks.

• Promote HLE Law — Honest, Logical and Evidence-based frameworks for decision-making.

• Encourage clearer evidential thresholds, stronger judicial filters and consistent accountability where misuse occurs.
• Aim for national improvements that restore balance, reduce conflict and maintain children’s relationships with both safe parents.

It is time for the UK to build the parachute — protections that stop emergency laws being hijacked  while still safeguarding those they were created to protect.

​

7. Build Multi-Agency Understanding & Clearer Definitions

• Collaborate with CAFCASS, ICFA, Women’s Aid, researchers, legal bodies and practitioners.

• Help develop clearer, evidence-based indicators of parental alienation and coercive post- separation abuse.

• Ensure the silver bullet tactic is recognised as a risk factor within safeguarding and domestic-abuse frameworks.
• Provide practical guidance to help courts and professionals support healthier, child-focused arrangements.

8. From Story to Change — My 321 Days as “The Absent Parent”

For 321 days, I was removed from my daughter’s life.
Contact was blocked, delayed, manipulated and minimised.
Repeated financial demands were made in exchange for equal parenting.
Emotional manipulation was performed openly — including the deliberate “dog treat” incident during our first reconnection.
More than 25 breaches occurred, with no meaningful consequence.
When I sought to enforce, I was punished with a multi-year block on applications.
When I sought to appeal, I was threatened with its extension.

These events are not unique. They form part of a broader pattern:

A system that documents almost everything except the harm caused when the silver bullet tactic succeeds.

Through The Absent Parent CIC, the mission is:

• To name what is happening.
• To count what is being lost.
• To promote accountability using existing tools and evidence.
• To ensure that when time with a child is wrongfully taken, the system recognises it and responds.

Only then will the silver bullet become the boomerang it truly is — returning through consequences, while restoring a child’s right to a loving relationship with both parents.

9. Accountability, the LOTTIE Register & the Clare’s Law Bolt-On Concept

• Explore the LOTTIE Register (Lost Our Time Together Through Invented Evidence) as a court-led recording framework for when emergency allegations are later found unsupported and have significantly reduced a child’s time with a safe parent.
• Highlight how existing court powers — cost orders, make-up time, findings of fact — could be used more consistently to address Harm through Legalised Exclusion (HLE).
• Develop a carefully scoped Clare’s Law bolt-on concept, where—in serious cases—courts could, in principle, share proportionate risk information with police when someone seeks reassurance about a partner’s history.
• Ensure all proposals are evidence-led, using national survey data and lived experience from projects including Lottie and 100 Parents v The Family Court.

Purpose:
To stop the silver bullet remaining invisible; to help courts recognise the harm caused by invented evidence; and to support responsible, child-focused use of existing judicial tools.

10. The Robert Garza Principle – Time Taken, Time Back (UK Context)

• Draw inspiration from Robert Garza’s Time Taken, Time Back model, which restores lost parenting time when allegations do not stand up.
• Demonstrate how similar principles — restoration, accountability, recognition of lost time — can inform UK training, practice and safeguarding.
• Show that when lived experience is paired with evidence and structured advocacy, meaningful system improvements follow.
• Reinforce the truth that children’s lost time must be counted, acknowledged and repaired, not dismissed as collateral damage.

This is not a law-change campaign — it is evidence that better practice is possible, and families deserve nothing less.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

The Absent Parent CIC exists to publish, educate, document, support families, improve professional understanding, collect national evidence, and inform improvements in guidance, training and safeguarding.
Its purpose is to ensure the emotional harm caused by weaponised allegations, coercive control and post-separation abuse is finally recognised, recorded and prevented — so that children maintain healthy, loving relationships with both parents.

THE ABSENT PARENT CIC

“CATCHING THE UNICORNS” SURVEY

​

Judicial Behaviour, Post-Separation Abuse & The Silver Bullet Tactic in Divorce

​

“This book is 100 parents saying the same thing: the family court is not working. One voice was ignored. 100 can’t be.”

​

This survey gathers the voices of parents, extended family and professionals to show the real impact of family court decisions. Through lived experience and structured questions, we’re exposing patterns, highlighting systemic failures, and pushing for meaningful reform.

We call this our “Catching the Unicorns” work – because we’re looking for the rare cases where the family court actually recognises the Silver Bullet tactic in divorce as post-separation abuse and moves to put it right, alongside the many stories where that didn’t happen.

This survey is also for the families who have lost someone while fighting the family court, and for the forgotten family members who are affected but rarely mentioned – aunties, uncles, grandparents, step-parents and wider relatives. We don’t just want to hear from mums, dads and the child at the centre. Anyone who has been impacted can complete this survey.

WHAT THIS SURVEY IS FOR

The purpose of this survey is to:

• Highlight real problems in the family court system around post-separation abuse, the Silver Bullet tactic and judicial blindness.
• Gather public views and lived experience – from parents, relatives and professionals – on how these issues actually show up in real cases.
• Draw out powerful stories that make people say, “No way. I can’t believe this is happening in the UK right now.”
• Use those stories and data to motivate change – in law, guidance, professional practice and public awareness.

We also want to identify:

• serious examples of the Silver Bullet tactic being used as post-separation abuse,
• severe post-separation abuse where a child has clearly been impacted, and
• cases where the court appeared blind to these patterns,
• as well as the rare “unicorn” cases where judges and professionals did see and act on them.

This survey is part of The Absent Parent CIC and our forthcoming publication 100 Parents v The Family Court.

By sharing your experience, you help define clearer examples and standards that can make future cases safer and fairer for parents, children and extended families.

• Your responses will be kept confidential, and anything we publish will be anonymised so that you and your family cannot be identified.
• At the end of the survey you can choose to leave contact details.
• From the stories we receive, 100 will be selected for the book 100 Parents v The Family Court.
• We will not use any story in the book unless we have been able to contact you, verify the details and get your clear consent. Where possible we would like to speak or meet to understand the gravity of your story.

​

Do you want to be part of the 100 that make that difference?

​

Important note about Parent 1 / Parent 2

​

Important: In all of the examples and scenarios in this survey, “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” are not tied to any particular gender.
Please answer based on the behaviour, not on whether you imagine Parent 1 as a mum or a dad. Either parent could be male, female or non-binary.

​

Estimated time to complete: around 25–40 minutes (depending on how much you write in the open text boxes).

SECTION A – CONSENT

Q1. Consent to take part

(You can add your own examples in the text fields that follow each scenario.)

SECTION B – ABOUT YOU & YOUR ROLE

Q3. What is your gender?
Mother
Father
Step-parent
Grandparent / other relative
Legal professional (solicitor, barrister, legal exec, etc.)
Social worker
CAFCASS / ICFA officer
Therapist / counsellor / psychologist
Judge / magistrate / legal adviser
Academic / researcher / journalist
Other (please specify):
Q3. What is your gender?
Male
Female
Non-binary
Prefer not to say
Prefer to self-describe
Q4. Have you personally been a parent/party in family-court proceedings?
Yes – as a parent or family member
Yes – in a professional role only (never as a party)
Yes – both personally and professionally
No
Q4a. Whose experience are you mainly describing in this survey?
My own experience as a parent / party in the case
My child’s experience (e.g. I am a mum/dad filling this in about my adult child’s case)
My partner or ex-partner’s experience
A relative’s experience (e.g. grandchild, sibling, other family member)
A friend’s experience
I am a professional describing patterns I’ve seen across cases
Other (please briefly describe)

Q5. Where are you mainly based?

Q6. If you are a parent or carer, in what year did your relationship with the other parent end (approximately)?
2010–2014
2015–2018
2019–2021
2022–2025
Not applicable / prefer not to say

SECTION C – COURT INVOLVEMENT & EXPECTATIONS

Q8. Which kinds of family-court proceedings have you been involved in?
Q9. When were your main children proceedings (approximate)?
Before 2015
2015–2018
2019–2021
2022–2023
2024–2025
Ongoing now
Not applicable
Q11. Based on your experience or observations, how closely did reality match your expectations?
Much better than expected
Slightly better than expected
About what I expected
Slightly worse than expected
Much worse than expected
I’m not sure

SECTION D – CONTACT, IMPACT & WELLBEING

Q13. Before any court proceedings, how often did you see your child(ren)?
Lived with me most of the time
Roughly 50/50 with the other parent
Regular contact (e.g. weekends and some holidays)
Irregular contact
Very little or no contact
Not applicable
Q14. During proceedings, how often did you see your child(ren)?
Contact increased
Contact stayed about the same
Contact was reduced
Contact stopped completely for a period
Supervised contact only
Not applicable
Q15. What is your current legal position with your child(ren)? (closest answer)
No current order – informal arrangements only
Court order with regular contact
50/50 or broadly equal care under an order
Supervised contact only
Indirect contact only (letters / video / etc.)
No contact at all
Not applicable
Q16. If your contact was stopped but there were no safeguarding findings against you If there was a period when your contact with your child(ren) was stopped or significantly reduced, and later: • there were no safeguarding concerns upheld against you
Reinstated the previous routine (e.g. 50/50 or prior pattern)
Reinstated part of the previous routine, but not all
Started again from a much lower level (e.g. short daytime contact, no overnights)
Started with supervised or heavily restricted contact
Made no real effort to restore what was there before
Not applicable – my contact was never stopped in this way
Not sure

what did the court do about your time with the child(ren)?

Q17. Resident parent opposing return to the previous routine When your contact was being looked at again, did the resident parent oppose returning to the previous routine (e.g. 50/50 or regular overnights)?
Yes – clearly opposed
Partly – agreed to some contact but not full restoration
No – did not strongly oppose
Not sure
Not applicable

what did the court do about your time with the child(ren)?

Q18. Did the court have the appetite to act against the resident parent and for the previously absent parent?
Yes – willing to act against the resident parent and restore my role
Sometimes – small steps, but avoided fully going against the resident parent
No – seemed unwilling to go against the resident parent even with no findings against me
Not sure
Not applicable

what did the court do about your time with the child(ren)?

Q19. Now, how close do you feel to your child(ren)? (0 = not close at all, 10 = extremely close)
Q20. How fairly do you feel you were treated by the system overall? (0 = completely unfair, 10 = completely fair)
Q21. How has all of this affected your mental or emotional health?
Q22. How has it affected your physical health or day-to-day life?
Q23. How has it affected your work and finances?

SECTION E – DISABILITY, NEURODIVERGENCE &

ASSESSMENTS

Q24. Do you consider yourself disabled, neurodivergent, or having a long-term health condition?
Q25. Did you make the court or professionals aware of your accessibility needs / disability / neurodivergence?
Q26. Psychological / psychiatric assessments ordered or pushed for Were you ever asked or required to take part in a psychological or psychiatric assessment because CAFCASS, the court or the other side painted you as emotionally unhealthy.
Q26a. If you had an assessment, how accurate and fair did you feel it was?
Q27. Do you feel your disability / neurodivergence / health condition was...
Q28. Did late changes, short-notice hearings or pressure during hearings feel harder because of your disability / neurodivergence / health needs?
Q29. Overall, do you feel your disability / neurodivergence was taken advantage of by...?

SECTION F – FACT-FINDING, SECTION 7 & JUDICIAL

BEHAVIOUR

What is a fact-finding hearing?

In family court, a fact-finding hearing is a special hearing where the

court looks at specific allegations (for example of domestic abuse or

serious incidents) and decides what did or did not happen. Each side

sets out clear findings, provides evidence, and has that evidence

tested (questions/cross-examination). The court should then base

long-term decisions on what has been properly found as fact.

Q31. Fact-finding hearings in your case Was a fact-finding hearing used to properly test serious allegations before long-term decisions were made?
Q31a. If fact-finding was not used (or side-stepped), how did that feel in your case?

Judicial behaviour scenarios (shortened headings)

Q32. Judge’s response to 18 months of positive contact evidence


(Scenario: Parent 2 shows extensive happy-contact evidence and a video of child wanting to see

them; judge dismisses this and calls the video “desperate”.)

Q32a. Did the judge act fairly, transparently and within proper procedure in this scenario?
Yes
No
Unsure

Q33. Judge focuses on new partner instead of repeated breaches


(Scenario: repeated “child is ill” breaches by Parent 1; judge focuses mainly on whether Parent 2

asked permission to introduce a new partner.)

Q33a. Did the judge act fairly and properly?
Yes
No
Unsure

Q34. Judge orders “time in lieu” the opposite way round


(Scenario: Parent 2 has lost time due to Parent 1’s history of breaches; judge orders Parent 2 to give

time “in lieu” back to Parent 1.)

Q34a. Did the judge act fairly and properly?
Yes
No
Unsure
Q35. Last-minute changes and pressure Have you experienced frequent last-minute changes to hearing dates/times or pressure at hearings?
Yes – and it felt neutral/unavoidable
Yes – and it felt like it put me at a disadvantage / was used as pressure
No
Not sure
Q36. Feeling blamed for applying to court If you applied (or re-applied) to court about your child(ren), did you ever feel that you were being blamed or treated as an inconvenience for bringing the case?
Yes – often
Sometimes
No
Not applicable
Q37. Applying to enforce breaches turned back on you If you applied to court because the other parent was breaching an order, did you feel that the fact you applied was turned back on you (painted as “high conflict” or “the problem”)?
Yes
Sometimes
No
Not applicable
Who mainly did this? (tick all that apply)
Q38. Section 7 report when the writer cannot attend If a Section 7 report was written but the author was unable to attend court (e.g. illness), what do you think should usually happen?
Judge can still rely fully on the report
Judge can use it but give it reduced weight
Hearing should usually be adjourned so they can attend or be questioned
Depends on circumstances
Not sure
Q39. Going back to court for breaches – did your issues get removed, minimised or “slipped out”?
My issues were taken seriously and properly dealt with
Some issues were considered, many were minimised or dropped
Most issues were diminished, removed or sidelined when I went back
Not applicable
Who/what played the biggest part?
Q40. If the court first focused on you as “the issue”, could it later change direction?
Yes – clearly changed and recognised problems on the other side
Partly – small shifts only
No – once they saw me as the issue, they never really changed
Not sure
Not applicable
Q41. Overall pattern of judicial conduct
Mostly appropriate and fair
Sometimes harsh but generally fair
Pattern of bias against one parent
Pattern of minimising or ignoring post-separation abuse
I’m not sure

SECTION G – ORDERS, APPEALS & ESCALATION

Q42. Court orders – drafting and mistakes Did you experience any of the following?
Q43. Appeals and escalation Which apply to you?

SECTION H – POST-SEPARATION ABUSE & FINANCIAL ABUSE

Q44. Do you consider any of the behaviours you’ve experienced after separation to be “postseparation abuse”?
Yes
No
Not sure
Q45. The Silver Bullet tactic as post-separation abuse Knowing what the Silver Bullet tactic is (as described on The Absent Parent website), do you consider its use a form of post-separation abuse?
Yes
No
Not sure
Q45a. Which of the following do you personally see as examples of post-separation abuse?
Repeatedly blocking or cancelling contact without good reason
Saying “the child doesn’t want to go” while engineering that view
Moving or changing nursery/school in a way that cuts the other parent out
Using the child as a messenger or “secret agent” for information
Using money or assets as leverage for contact (e.g. “Pay me and I’ll agree to more time / 50-50”)
Making or maintaining false, exaggerated or untested abuse allegations to control contact
Using non-molestation orders or protective orders tactically (for legal aid, power or reputation)
Turning wider family (grandparents, relatives, friends) against the other parent
Deliberately undermining the child’s relationship with the other parent (bad-mouthing, guilt-tripping, loyalty tests)
Using professionals (court, school, police, social workers) to harass or box in the other parent
Other behaviours I see as post-separation abuse (please describe)

SECTION I – PARENTAL ALIENATION (DIRECT & BY PROXY)

Q61. Do you see the following as parental alienation?

Q61a. A parent regularly blocks or cancels contact despite a standing court order.
Agree
Disagree
Unsure
Other
Q61b. A parent repeatedly undermines, belittles or bad-mouths the other parent to the child.
Agree
Disagree
Unsure
Other

Q62. How would you personally define “parental alienation”?


Dog + coaching scenario Scenario

Shared family dog becomes a weapon

At separation, Parent 1 and Parent 2 agree that the family dog will be shared, so the child can enjoy the dog in both homes.

Soon after:

• The dog stops being shared in the same way the child was originally shared.

• When the targeted parent (Parent 2) says something like, “If the dog doesn’t come, I’ll sadly have to get my own dog,” the child begins to become very upset about coming without the dog.

• The child says they can’t sleep without the dog and doesn’t want to go unless the dog comes too.


At the same time, when the contact routine is being re-discussed or destabilised, a young child who does not really know their days of the week suddenly says to the targeted parent:


“I don’t want to come any other day than Friday. Not Wednesday.”


This sounds like they may have been coached about which days to accept and which to refuse.

Q63. How would you describe Parent 1’s behaviour in this scenario?
Normal / reasonable behaviour about a pet
Poor co-parenting but not abusive
Using the child’s attachment to the dog as leverage
Parental alienation (using the dog and days to reduce contact)
Parental alienation by proxy (using the dog to make the child say “no”)
Post-separation abuse
Emotional or psychological abuse of the child (weaponising attachment and sleep / security)
I’m not sure
Other
Q64. Do you feel this looks like possible coaching of the child about contact days?
Yes – clearly looks coached
Possibly – raises concerns about coaching
No – could be the child’s own words/preferences
Not sure

SECTION J – THE SILVER BULLET TACTIC & PROFESSIONALS

Q75. Have you personally witnessed or experienced the Silver Bullet tactic in divorce (false or exaggerated allegations deployed as a litigation tactic)?
Yes – I experienced it personally
Yes – I witnessed it in someone else’s case
No
Unsure / not sure if that’s what it was
Q75a. If you were subjected to the Silver Bullet tactic as a form of post-separation abuse, what did it look like in your case?
False or heavily exaggerated domestic-abuse allegations raised at or just before separation
Allegations used to suddenly stop or block contact with your child(ren)
Allegations used to obtain legal aid or funding for one side only
Allegations repeated in multiple arenas (court, school, GP, police) even when unproven
Allegations used to gain housing, money or other financial advantage
Allegations maintained even after contrary evidence emerged
Supported or amplified by professionals (e.g. solicitor/barrister drafting/pushing them, professionals minimising contrary evidence)
Other
Q76. What types of professionals were involved?
Legal professional (solicitor, barrister, legal exec, etc.)
Police
Social worker
CAFCASS / ICFA
Judge / magistrate / legal adviser
Therapist / counsellor / psychologist
Other

Law firms / professionals enabling the tactic

Q76a. Have you ever had a legal professional suggest or encourage using this tactic? For example, a solicitor or adviser asking, “Has there been any domestic abuse?” and hinting or suggesting that saying “yes” (even if not really true) would help you.
Yes – I was directly encouraged to exaggerate or fabricate allegations
Yes – I felt strongly steered towards making allegations, even if they were unclear or overstated
No – my legal advisers did not encourage this
I had no legal representation (litigant in person)
Not sure / prefer not to say
Q76b. If yes, who suggested or assisted with this tactic? (You can describe the type of firm or, if you wish, name them. This will not be published with identifying details, but may help identify patterns.)
Type of firm / organisation (e.g. “high-street family law firm”, “legal aid firm”, “online law service”):
Optional – name of firm/chambers/organisation:
Briefly describe what was said or suggested (e.g. “They asked if there had been domestic
abuse and said that would help with the house / children / legal aid”)
Q76c. Which law firms or organisations do you believe assisted with the Silver Bullet tactic or postseparation abuse in your case? (For example by drafting or pushing misleading statements, encouraging certain allegations, or repeatedly minimising.
A law firm acting for my ex-partner
A law firm that briefly acted for me
Barristers / counsel instructed in the case
I don’t believe any firms assisted with this
Not sure

SECTION K – COURT MOTIVATION & SYSTEMIC ISSUES

Keep as previously drafted: questions on whether the court felt child-centred vs money/procedure centred, whether issues were left unresolved so you’d have to re-apply, fee remission and whether paying/not paying affected seriousness, and whether it felt like genuine problem-solving vs boxticking.

SECTION L – SHARE YOUR STORY

Q98. Are you happy for your story (anonymised) to be considered for inclusion in 100 Parents v The Family Court and related publications?
Yes, I consent to my anonymised story being considered
No, I prefer my story to be used for research data only
Other

SECTION M – FOLLOW-UP & CONTACT

WHAT THIS SURVEY IS FOR

• To highlight real issues in how the family courts are handling post-separation abuse, the Silver Bullet tactic and related behaviours.

• To capture public views and first-hand experience of these patterns – from parents, wider family and professionals.

• To draw out stories so powerful and clear that people outside the system say, “I can’t believe this is happening in the UK right now.”

• To use that evidence to push for legal reform, better guidance and training, and a culture change in how the family court responds to post-separation abuse, the Silver Bullet tactic and parental alienation (including by proxy).

Your rights and data

You can withdraw your participation or ask for your data to be deleted at any time by contacting us at:

If you withdraw after giving a story, we will remove your material from any future publication or project where it has not already gone to print.

If you have any concerns about how your data is being used, you can contact us for more information or to raise a concern.

Final note and thank you

If you have a story that involves:

​

• the Silver Bullet tactic as a form of post-separation abuse, and/or

• very serious post-separation abuse or parental alienation where a child was clearly impacted, and/or

• judicial blindness to those patterns,

​

we especially want to hear from you and may wish to consider your case for inclusion in 100 Parents v The Family Court.

​

No story will be published without your informed consent. For the 100 stories we include, we will follow up, check details and, where possible, meet or speak with you to understand the gravity of what happened.

​

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

Your experience and insight help turn pain into progress and bring us closer to a system that genuinely protects children and treats every parent  and every extended family  fairly

The Silver Bullet Boomerang

In the end, our aim is simple: to turn the Silver Bullet into a boomerang – so that when it’s fired as a tactic, it swings back as accountability on the person misusing it.

The only way to stop its abuse is to name it, measure it, and properly punish its misuse in law and professional practice.

By completing this survey, you’re helping to shape that boomerang.

Under a heading of downloads

31 targeting parent tactics

And

Tricks Against LIPs (Litigants in Person)

bottom of page