In today’s society, the protection of children and families is outpaced by an ever-growing number of consortiums seeking to exploit systems for personal gain. Such organizations represent the worst of profiteers by wrapping themselves in narratives that are designed to gain public support without being transparent. The lack of transparency comes in many forms, existing with less than genuine intent.
We don’t have to go far back in our technological history to see warnings about how rapidly advancing technology can be exploited for personal gain. In the rush for innovation and convenience, transparency and privacy took a backseat. Our world is complex, demanding a carefully balanced approach with strength and wisdom. The reality behind these technological warnings has given rise to new collaborative consortiums that understand the importance of advocating technology to establish control within society, which can be readily adapted to generate financial benefits.
Various industries and government agencies gradually adapted and complied under the guise of promoting convenience and well-being. While this transformation shouldn’t be equated with the fictionalized Borg’s motto from Star Trek—“You will be assimilated, you will comply”—it’s hard to ignore how cinema has anticipated these societal shifts. Filmmakers excel at envisioning futures centered on themes of compliance and loss of autonomy, as if they had already scripted the rise and fall of Administrative Family Courts.
The Matrix movies explore tension between technological progress and individual freedoms in a cautionary tale that incentivizes us to be diligent about blindly accepting promises of convenience without fully understanding the ramifications. Such narratives reflect how technology reshapes our identities and interpersonal relationships, raising critical questions about who is in control and who ultimately benefits from having that control.
Similar to the misuse of technology impacting individual rights, the rise of Administrative Family Courts in the early 2000s was presented to the public with much less fanfare than a movie premiere yet, was accompanied by numerous assertions about the advantages and convenience they provided for separating parents. After all, what could be problematic with promoting a “family-friendly court” and a “streamlined adjudication process” for the state?
What indeed. Family court is not as complicated as financial stakeholders would have you believe, despite their carefully crafted narratives about case complexity, the struggles of self-represented litigants, and the unbalanced notion that all the problems in family court are the fault of the litigants themselves. Similar to technology, this so-called convenient court solution has extended beyond undermining our families’ individual freedoms, rights, values, and societal norms in New Hampshire.
Simplistic analysis of cases reveals how DCYF, YDC, and BCSS benefit from artificially generated high-conflict family court cases—an act often fostered by collaborating attorneys and guardian ad litems who also happen to benefit. Like any organization, financial survival depends on meeting performance goals and achieving incentive requirements. In a state like New Hampshire, the small population-to-family ratio reveals that this business model was unsustainable without artificial intervention.
Complaints from victimized parents, who describe the unjust pursuit of families, directly reflect the financial motivations behind the artificial separation of parents and children, which ultimately leaves them in deep despair and isolation. Children who are left feeling abandoned, frequently placed with strangers—often experiencing various forms of abuse—seemingly to redefine the concept of family. It would seem reasonable to argue that this intentional separation constitutes a form of abuse, especially for pre-teen children.
Very young children struggle to understand why their nurturing, protective parent has been removed from their lives, while older children aging out of family court describe being placed with a self-serving parent. Often an abuser, who willingly hands them off to strangers as caregivers, just to get rid of them. Throughout this process, these children recognize which parent genuinely cares for their well-being. However, over time, that warmth can turn cold as the protective parent is artificially labeled an “absent parent” for the financial benefit of creating a child support order. This leads to dire consequences for both the parent and the children, including the loss of freedom and rights as they are forced to comply with the court’s plans.
This approach worsens the negative impact and suffering from displacing children, especially when they are unjustly and unnaturally removed from stable parental units to benefit the financial interests of family court stakeholders, who blatantly disregard the harm caused. Vigilance is essential as we must evaluate the consequences of these assimilated “convenient solutions” that threaten our rights to family, freedoms and values. The allure of convenience must not overshadow the need for transparency, accountability, and ethical considerations.
Every two years our newest elected officials are gob-smacked with alarming data and heart-wrenching accounts of harm inflicted upon our children and families. Meanwhile, our seasoned legislators have a more realistic and invested understanding of the common practices in family court as well as the financial incentives tied to the system and the state. “Smoke and mirrors” feels a lot less like an apt analogy and more like a reflection of the historical trend where reality closely mirrors appearances.
As a reminder, authors’ opinions are their own and may not represent those of Grok Media, LLC, GraniteGrok.com, its sponsors, readers, authors, or advertisers. Submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com
Donate to the ‘Grok to keep the content coming.
