Thank you Brian Hudson for all your efforts and ideas to improve the lives of children, spend tax dollars more efficiently, reduce financial burdens on parents, and reduce the prevalence of parental alienation! Your math model of reality is helpful. And thank you for creating this video as a communication format! I have several suggestions as we seek to unify our dispersed efforts: 1. Our advantages are huge: reason is on our side, our challenge is making it known. Science is on our side and so is the public when it can be communicated to them. This is no easy task and will not happen soon enough to affect our generation, building a thoughtful strategic reputation is core to success. 2. Let's avoid aggressive messaging and symbols (knights/soldiers). Unhealthy, aggressive parents are what created this problem. We are reasonable people and few in number. influence is best achieved through assertively making reasoned and suggested changes. 3. Let's seek to assist groups who would also like to solve the issue, the judicial system. I purport that judges would prefer to make better-informed child-centric decisions in these complex interpersonal family situations. They need specialized training to achieve this (and maybe a specialty court so fewer judges need the training when allegations of any type of abuse are made). Let's not vilify a long-term system that includes very good people in the green depiction. 4. Family court attorneys are separate from the courts (although a source for new judges). let's educate them as well so at least some targeted parents have a chance to protect their children. 5. Yes, a vocal minority of gender-oriented detractors that appear to have control of significant public funds, the infrastructure of full-time resources, and a legacy of experience and public influence (which can change faster than ever these days). Their ideologies have blinded them and they will likely not update their views. However, we share the same goal of wanting to protect children and parents from abuse. With our reasonable, partnering approach with a growing base of peer-reviewed science, I believe we can penetrate this group, especially the younger people. Instead of a single, giant 50-foot tall wave 10-miles wide, I imagine a 20-foot wave only 50 yards wide but reaching shore exactly where it damages the courts and the court staff and families it serves. We need to activate the people on the rest of the 10-miles of shoreline. (More details on aligning with the domestic abuse advocate community are beyond the scope of this comment.) 6. As Nick Child proffers in his comment, the ultimate goal is prevention through better parenting starting with the creation of healthy attachments (with at least one parent/caregiver). This is a large, challenging goal (especially in societies that value and prioritize freedom and individuality), but it is a worthy goal and a smart, financially preferable investment. In summary, our problems lie significantly in the family court's adversarial design (which is simply a carry-over from civil and criminal courts) and personality disorders (whether they be a parent or non-parent abuser). While we work to create alternative designs for the family courts and reduce the prevalence of personality disorders, we can work on a list of smaller fixes (which includes education). We are not radical outliers, they are. I think it is critical that as a group we build an unassailable reputation and friendly persona and apply an assertive, reasoned strategy that masses we will marshal will find our message and persona attractive and join our mission to support the best interests of children. Thanks again Brian Hudson for your deep thinking and time to create impactful communications! I look forward to sharing more ideas together!
Thanks for this Brian. Some have responded as if your message is: “We must take on the tsunami / monster”. If I understand it, you are saying the opposite. That it's way too big to be stopped - at least that it’s crazy to imagine that a motley set of uncoordinated knights with lances on horses can stop it - individually or collectively. I take it you're saying another way is required. You hint that the tsunami can be surfed and suggest that not paying into the system might be logical. Otherwise, you invite but don't provide workable suggestions. I'd say: Look around. There’s already established alternatives that not only show the way forward - making the family law system ‘monster’ redundant - but even embrace the concerns behind the tsunami. The alternative is simply but powerfully that we remind and revive the universal value we all share - even those running the tsunami - in family attachment for children and for life, and effective compassionate early intervention for this overarching concern: “How do we best ensure the safety and long-term wellbeing of children when parents split up?” That’s a question and a cause that potentially unites the tsunami (if not the system) and the knights on horses. I welcome that you're heading in the right direction. I hope to talk further in relevant forums to help you make the next steps!
Hey Brian, I value your work and would like to ask permission to use your research in a different format for a audience- giving full credit to you for the work?
A couple of things, Brian: I've used your slide show in the Slack that was set up for those you had wanted to share this with. Are you going to join in there? I agree with your analysis (that tsunami + monster is impossible for knights with swords to defeat). That solution, as you say, hasn't done much to change the world for some decades now. If we keep doing 'more of the same' then we're like the first bit of this excerpt from Blackadder set in WW1 fb.watch/4O-GJ6EcI6/
