top of page

DISINFO WATCH: California Protective Parents Association and Tina Swithin's "One Mom's Battle"

CPPA - Solution or Problem?

Now prominently promoted by California Protective Parents Association ("CPPA"), the matter of Courtney Probst being jailed in Colorado was discussed on Ask Alex 2 weeks ago. Appearing on the show was Probst's friend Nancy Fingerhood; and Probst's ADA advocate, Dr. Danielle Duperret. As they tell it, Probst was jailed for daring to speak out against the child abuse perpetrated by the father, which speech the Court determined to be Contempt. According to the story, Probst was ordered to take down a Facebook post, presumably one in which she accused the father of abusing the child. Probst complied with the take-down order, but not before an unnamed Facebook Group had retold the story. Probst had no ability to take down the story authored by someone else, but nevertheless was sentenced to many months in jail for Contempt. That is the story in a nutshell, as explained to me by Nancy Fingerhood and Dr. Danielle. So far, the Courtney Probst story is at least plausible to me. After all, I am under a "domestic violence" restraining order that prohibits me from "publicizing documents obtained in discovery", and I am clear that the court is acting in concert with the big-money interests to cover up the stack of forged music contracts I obtained, demonstrating wide-spread fraud in the music industry. I've never been violent a single time in my entire life. Moreover, I am familiar with numerous other cases in which good people are being tortured by the court system. But the problem is, it's all being done in the name of "protecting the children". Ms. Fingerhood contacted me, giving permission to distribute and publicize a support letter for Probst, which I had offered to do. Also shared with me was a link to a newsletter from the "California Protective Parents Association" ("CPPA"), which newsletter featured an article about the Probst matter, and several other articles, including one about Tina Swithen and her "One Mom's Battle" and "Family Court Awareness Month" campaigns. Swithen even has support from two California State-level politicians - State Senator Susan Rubio and her sister, Assemblywoman Blanca Rubio. I am cautiously optimistic, but at the same time highly skeptical. After reading CPPA newsletter, my Disinfo Radar is on RED ALERT. Many of the CPPA articles are shouting about "abuse" and how it must be stopped, and how family courts are returning children to abusive fathers. But what's missing from many of these articles is the Who, What, When, Where and Why, i.e. the facts. The all seem to be - as my law professors would say - "conclusory". Worse, the CPPA promoted articles almost universally seem to portray fathers as the villains. Just because someone says a father is "abusive", doesn't make it so. Give us something to go on. We want facts. And as I was thinking that, I was reminded of my first conversation with Dr. Danielle, several weeks prior. I was impressed that Dr. Danielle will advocate for Legal Abuse Syndrome, a form of PTSD caused by the court system. However, I was troubled by Dr. Danielle's complaint that the adverse attorney wanted to cross-examine her. Of course he did. All witnesses MUST be cross-examined, justice requires it. We can't just accept someone's statement uncritically. Standing up to cross examination is exactly what gives a witness credibility. It would give Dr. Danielle the opportunity to explain how and why Legal Abuse is real, and why it is bad. The inability to cross examine, e.g. Social Worker reports, is THE PROBLEM in Dependency Court. See Welfare and Institutions Code § 355, which holds that anything a social worker writes in a report is automatically admissible, and is automatically the truth. Does that sound fair? I was then APPALLED to find this story, linked by CPPA, titled "How The Family Court’s Purpose To Protect Children Became Inverted". Here is a quote from this disinformation piece, which is clearly coming straight from the court system itself:

Despite this lack of professional credibility, [Parental Alienation Syndrome] PAS has been advanced into family courts by an active coalition of grifter therapists and unscrupulous lawyers working for abusive men. As attorney Barry Goldstein explained in a recent issue of Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly: “…the best way for lawyers and mental health professionals to make large incomes is to support approaches that favour wealthy abusers. The pernicious Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) was concocted to give these professionals an argument to support abusive fathers. This started the cottage industry that has done so much to help abusers and spread misinformation in the courts.”

I am equally appalled by Tina Swithin ("One Mom's Battle" and "Family Court Awareness Month"), who has created quite a brand for herself, educating us on "How can I prevent my financials from being subpoenaed" and "debunking parental alienation".

Okay? What these liars mare teaching financial frauds how to avoid the discovery process, and are saying is that there is no PAS. That PAS was "concocted" to make excuses for child abusers, who are all men. Ghastly. Here is a nice talk by an actual expert regarding Parental Alienation:

To CPPA, to Tina Swithin, to author Grant Wyeth, and to anyone else promoting this hateful idea that parental rights must be sacrificed - shame on you.

Parental Alienation Syndrome is a real and devastating form of child abuse.

The fact that the Courts mostly fail to recognize PAS is the problem, not the solution. Family Court not only fails to recognize PAS, many judges actively perpetrate, by issuing "temporary" custody or restraining orders based on unsubstantiated allegations.

The Family Court system is perfectly equipped for those narcissistic parents who wish to use their children as both a weapon and a shield. It has long been a tactic within Level 1 court corruption to grant "temporary" child custody to one parent, thus forcing the other parent to fight for YEARS, after which the damage is done. More recently, we have seen the tremendous expansion of the NONSENSE restraining orders against non-violent and non-threatening people as a tactic to "win" in divorce. The "Silver Bullet" DVRO is a virulent form of child abuse. It must be stopped. I am not saying that real domestic violence does not exist. It does exist. And I know there are some unfortunate cases where children were returned to known abusers, with tragic results. These cases and these Judges should be CALLED OUT. Perhaps Tina Swithin's ex husband was physically abusive and deserved to be A far, far more common - and no less devastating - form of child abuse is Parental Alienation Syndrome, facilitated by bullshit DVROs. Yet CPPA is trying to convince you that PAS does not exist - that it was "concocted". What appears to be completely missing from the entire CPPA project is any statement of what is actually advocated. As far as I can tell, they are striving to advance a fact-free, state-sponsored narrative of an epidemic of abusive men manipulating a helpless court system into giving them unfettered access to violate children while all the women are silenced and falsely imprisoned. Here's my prediction:

I predict that what CPPA and Tina Swithin are really up to is EXPANDING the legal definition of "abuse", or somehow making it even easier to get a DVRO. - Alex Baker, 12-04-2020.

As if the Court's power needs to be expanded. The legal definition of abuse in California is already "any conduct that destroys the mental or emotional calm" of the other person. Which is to say, it can mean ANYTHING. They pass out DVROs like lollipops. We need to narrow, not expand the scope of restraining orders. This would give law enforcement greater ability to focus on real violence.

Dr. Danielle - you are good on Legal Abuse Syndrome, but where are you on Parental Alienation Syndrome? Does PAS exist in your view, or is it a "concoction" by abusive men as CPPA promotes? Will you advocate for PAS as a disability? As of this writing, I am open-minded on the Courtney Probst case. I don't know enough to have an opinion. It could be that the Court returned a child to an abuser, and silenced her. That stuff DOES happen. However, it could also be that Courtney Probst is a false accuser, who lost her case in Court, and then did something along the lines of taking her kids back against court orders, which ultimately landed her in jail. I simply don't know the facts, but I do know that there weren't a lot of facts forthcoming when discussed on the Ask Alex podcast, or in the article about the case, which can be found in the CPPA Newssletter here.

Tina Swithin was invited to dialog, and has declined, noting that we are "on opposites sides of the fence". Indeed we are, and I look forward to more coverage of this disturbing trend.

bottom of page