It’s a pleasure. Glad you found it helpful. Good luck with your case. Jill

Forget throwing labels or gendered ideologies around. That's so not the point. I'm trying to put across the message that it's the EVIDENCE that counts when it comes to court. Make sure you have and clearly present the EVIDENCE to prove that what happened fits the definition of the abuse and you don't need labels or ideologies. What people say in debate or in press releases is of no importance to making and winning your actual case in court, which depends on your EVIDENCE.

This woman laughingly calls herself 'hear the truth' but doesn't want to hear anything but her own voice - she has demonstrated perfectly the problem that men have. You made a perfectly balanced, good and noncontroversial point, but she immediately falsely accuses you of 'labels' and 'gendered ideologies'. She is part of the problem.

Please see my reply to The Uncanny X-Man below

@Liza Welsh First, we are not just talking about obstructing contact with children, my comment drew parallels with recognition of the 'mere' threat to do so, despite it amounting to intimidation, NOT being recognized as abuse. Second, while I certainly agree that a range of other forms of abuse usually litter the trail that ultimately culminates in obstructing contact with children, I am unsettled by the ambiguity you invite as to who suffers the abuse and who perpetrates it. Doesn't your comment imply that in the most part it is the victim who is pushed to 'justly' obstruct the children's relationship with their other parent? If so, even accepting your claim, I urge you not to be so dismissive of the victims that make up 'the other part', at least half of whom are children. Moreover, and in any case, without reliable supporting data, your claim of 'for the most part' could well indicate a presumptuousness on your part with regard to proportionality, and one that likely fed into your dismissive tone. Contrary to your claim, (couched as though the perfectly valid message of the podcast were relevant to the situation I raise - it isn't) NOTHING needs to be evidenced or proven in order to obtain an NMO for supposed 'protective separation' other than an anecdotal claim. In such cases it is the anecdotal claim that constitutes the so-called 'evidence' and against which victims of bogus claims somehow have to muster massive substantial evidence if they are to have any chance of showing that the bogus claim couldn't possibly be true.