NOTE: Certain facts and reasoning within this story, as well as names, were left out to protect the innocence of the children. These are my rational conclusions and judgments based upon our experiences from the past fifteen months or so with slander, libel, and the Dutch family law system. Is the pen, mightier than the sword? I guess we’ll find out as we move forward, and continue to use our pens in pursuit of truth, justice, and the American way (natural law/natural rights).
In an unassuming Dutch home, a mother and her three daughters once shared a life filled with love and mutual support. That bond was shattered when Child Protective Services (CPS), acting on unsubstantiated allegations from the ex-husband and children’s father, removed the girls and placed them with him, citing the mother’s administration of 6 mg of iodine daily—a dose modern research deems safe—as a primary justification. This decision, lacking evidence of harm, set off a cascade of psychological and emotional devastation, reshaping the girls’ perceptions of their mother through a web of unconscious dynamics, cognitive biases, and institutional failures. What followed was not protection but a profound injustice, as CPS’s actions inadvertently empowered manipulation, fractured a family, and caused lasting harm under the guise of safeguarding the children.
The father’s allegations, which were essentially a scattershot of unproven claims, were rooted in a contentious post-divorce dynamic with a likely narcissistic ex-husband. The iodine issue, though a focal point, was one of many accusations that was more like “throwing spaghetti against a wall” than anything rooted in evidence and reason. Despite CPS’s final report admitting no evidence of criminal activity or harm, the agency persisted, punishing the mother and her partner for refusing to conform to its biased demands. This overreach mirrors patterns seen in the Dutch childcare benefits scandal (in Dutch: “toeslagenaffaire”), where institutional rigidity and profiling devastated families with CPS centrally involved. Here, CPS’s intervention became a fulcrum for psychological triangulation, positioning the agency as an unwitting ally in the father’s narrative, amplifying his influence over the girls and canceling the mother’s voice and role completely from their lives.
The Oedipus complex is a psychological phenomenon where children, typically between the ages of 3 and 6, experience unconscious desires to possess the opposite-sex parent and eliminate the same-sex parent as a rival, which is seen as a normal part of psychosexual development. However, if unresolved or unprocessed, this complex can have lasting effects, potentially leading to parental alienation, where one parent becomes estranged from their child due to an intense emotional connection the child has with the other parent, or feelings of rivalry and resentment towards an alienated parent, creating long-term conflicts and strained relationships within families.
The abrupt removal of the girls from their mother’s care disrupted their emotional stability, creating a void that psychological dynamics rushed to fill. Sigmund Freud’s Oedipus complex offers a lens to understand how the girls, placed solely with their father, might have developed an intensified attachment to him. This unconscious pull, where children idealize the opposite-sex parent while rivaling the same-sex one, was exacerbated by CPS’s actions, which painted the mother as unfit without evidence. The girls, denied access to her perspective and role, began to see her through a distorted lens, aligning with their father as a protector in a narrative CPS unwittingly endorsed.
Scapegoating is a psychological defense mechanism where an individual or group assigns blame and responsibility to an innocent person, group, or entity in order to deflect attention from their own wrongdoing and avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions. By projecting their own transgressions onto someone else, the scapegoater attempts to avoid accountability, liability, and consequences for their own mistakes, thus shielding themselves from criticism and judgment.
This shift was not driven by rational evaluation but by instinctual and emotional currents beneath the girls’ conscious reasoning. The Oedipus complex thrives on such undercurrents, where loyalty to one parent can manifest as rejection of the other. CPS’s failure to substantiate the father’s claims or engage in fair-minded conversations meant the girls were left with a skewed premise: their mother was the source of disruption. Over time, this premise took root, fostering resentment, and possibly even hatred toward her, as the girls resolved their emotional turmoil and cognitive dissonance by canceling her, a rejection that aligns with the Oedipal rivalry where the same-sex parent becomes a scapegoat.
Emotional incest refers to a phenomenon where there is an excessive emotional closeness between individuals who are not romantically or sexually related, often resulting in blurred boundaries, dependency, or possessiveness in the relationship. This can occur between family members, siblings, friends, or even adults and children, and can be characterized by a deep sense of attachment, loyalty, or devotion that is not healthy or productive, and may interfere with other relationships or daily life.
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological phenomenon in which a victim of abuse, kidnapping, or captivity develops feelings of affection, loyalty, and even sympathy towards their captor or abuser, often as a coping mechanism to survive the traumatic situation. This unexpected reversal of emotions can occur when the victim feels a sense of relief or security with their captor, perhaps due to shared experiences, emotional support, or the perception that they are the only ones who truly understand and care for them.
Trauma played a significant role in this dynamic too. The girls’ sudden separation from their mother likely induced psychological distress, potentially manifesting as (and/or exacerbating already entrenched, and reinforcing the mother’s early observations about the father’s behavior years ago) emotional incest, where the father positioned them as surrogate caregivers, blurring boundaries and deepening their dependence on him. This dynamic echoes Stockholm syndrome, where victims bond with their captors as a survival mechanism. The girls, isolated from their mother and reliant on their father’s narrative, may have clung to him as a source of stability, perceiving him as a protector despite the questionable circumstances of their removal. CPS’s role in enforcing this isolation compounded the trauma, making it harder for the girls to see their mother as a positive figure.
Psychological triangulation is a manipulative behavior where an individual creates a triangular dynamic with others by shifting the balance of power between them, often by exploiting existing relationships, emotions, or vulnerabilities in order to gain control and influence over others. This can involve creating a sense of dependence, rivalry, or competition between people, which allows the manipulator to exert power over each person individually, while maintaining a position of superiority and control within the relationship.
Manipulation was a critical driver in this scenario. The father’s allegations, if knowingly false, suggest a form of psychological triangulation, where he drew the girls into a conflict that cast him as the hero and the mother as the villain. By involving CPS, he enlisted the state as a third party, lending credibility to his claims through its authority. This triangulation mirrors patterns seen in high-conflict divorces, where one parent manipulates perceptions to gain control. CPS’s failure to rigorously investigate these claims allowed the father’s narrative to dominate, making it difficult for the girls to question his authority or reconnect with their mother’s perspective.
Availability bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency for people to overestimate the importance or likelihood of information that is readily available, rather than seeking out more diverse and representative information. This bias leads individuals to judge events or phenomena as being more common or significant than they actually are, simply because they can easily recall vivid or memorable examples of such events.
Confirmation bias is a cognitive bias that refers to the tendency for people to favor and give greater weight to information that confirms their existing beliefs, opinions, or hypotheses, while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence. This bias leads individuals to selectively seek out and interpret information in a way that supports their preconceived notions, resulting in a distorted view of reality and a failure to consider alternative perspectives or opposing viewpoints.
Cognitive biases further distorted the girls’ understanding of their situation. Availability bias, where judgments are based on the most readily accessible information, meant the girls relied heavily on their father’s presence and CPS’s implicit endorsement of his story. With their mother’s voice effectively silenced by the separation, they had little access to counter-narratives that might have challenged the father’s claims. This bias was compounded by confirmation bias, where the girls, over time, sought out or recalled information that reinforced their negative view of their mother, solidifying their alienation from her.
The interplay of these dynamics—Oedipal conflicts, trauma, manipulation, and biases—created a feedback loop that locked the girls into a worldview that elevated their father and vilified their mother. CPS’s role was pivotal, as its failure to adhere to evidence-based procedures enabled this harmful dynamic. By acting on unsubstantiated allegations without due process, CPS created a power imbalance that stripped the mother of her role and amplified the father’s influence. This intervention, meant to protect, instead became a catalyst for division, shaping the girls’ perceptions in ways that are difficult to untangle.
The mother and her partner faced profound consequences beyond the loss of the children. The father’s allegations, if false, could constitute slander and libel under Dutch law, as they damaged the couple’s reputation and led to public humiliation. The trauma of the experience, coupled with the mother’s job loss and the ongoing pain of the children’s refusal to speak to them, paints a picture of reputational “murder” and emotional devastation. CPS’s persistence, despite acknowledging no harm or criminality, suggests a punitive motive, potentially aligning with gross negligence or official misconduct under Dutch law, echoing the systemic failures of the Dutch childcare benefits scandal.
The iodine justification, used to initiate and sustain the removal, is particularly telling. Modern research by Doctors Abraham, Brownstein, and Flechas demonstrates that 6 mg of iodine daily—equivalent to one drop of 5% Lugol’s—is safe and beneficial for many, with no evidence of harm at this dose. CPS’s reliance on the outdated 1948 Wolff-Chaikoff study, which lacks applicability to humans at this level, while ignoring the 18 modern scientific studies provided by the couple, reflects confirmation bias. This selective use of evidence prioritized bureaucratic rigidity over the children’s well-being, undermining the agency’s credibility and amplifying the injustice. It is important to state that the Dutch CPS system also engaged in confirmation bias in relationship to the biased questions they’d ask, how they’d interpret the context contained within the mother’s reasoning and stories, and refused to engage or participate in any meaningful dialogue along the way, prioritizing the father’s narrative over a rational and fair inquiry.
The Dutch childcare benefits scandal offers a chilling parallel. Between 2005 and 2019, the Dutch Tax and Customs Administration falsely accused thousands of parents of fraud, leading to financial ruin and, in over 1,600 cases, children being placed into care. The scandal exposed systemic bias, institutional inflexibility, and a lack of proportionality—traits evident in this case, where CPS’s actions fractured a family without evidence. The Dutch childcare benefits scandal’s fallout, with compensation lagging and trust in government eroded, underscores the lasting scars of such overreach, mirrored here in the irreparable loss of the mother’s relationship with her daughters.
Parental alienation refers to a phenomenon where one parent manipulates a child’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviors to create conflict between them and the other parent, leading to a distorted perception of the absent parent and potentially causing the child to reject or lose affection for the other parent. This can result in long-term emotional and psychological harm to the child, including difficulties with trust, intimacy, and attachment, as well as negative impacts on their mental health, self-esteem, and relationships with others, ultimately affecting their overall well-being and quality of life.
Parental alienation emerged as a devastating outcome of CPS’s intervention. Even without the father directly manipulating the girls, the agency’s actions—removing them from their mother and restricting contact—created conditions ripe for alienation. The girls, caught in a narrative that cast their mother as dangerous, began to reject her, a process fueled by their emotional turmoil and the absence of positive interactions with her. This alienation was not a deliberate act by the father (even though he benefited mightily from it) but an unintended consequence of CPS’s overzealous response, which destabilized the girls’ sense of security and attachment, thus providing immense gravity in the girls’ view in relationship to their father’s narrative about their mother and her partner.
Availability bias again played a crucial role in this alienation. With their mother absent, the girls relied on the information most readily available: their father’s presence and CPS’s protective narrative. This skewed their perception, as negative memories or assumptions about their mother became more salient than her love or care. The lack of contact prevented the mother from countering this narrative, leaving the girls trapped in a distorted reality where their father and CPS were the sole source of information and story lines, further entrenching their alienation.
Stockholm syndrome offers another lens to understand the girls’ loyalty shift. Isolated from their mother and reliant on their father and CPS’s authority (who became a surrogate legal guardian) they may have bonded with these figures as a survival mechanism. This attachment, driven by the need for stability in a chaotic situation, mirrors the psychological bonding seen in hostages, where victims align with their captors to reduce fear. CPS’s role in enforcing this isolation made it harder for the girls to question the narrative they were immersed in, deepening their estrangement from their mother.
The straw man fallacy is a logical error (fallacy, from the Latin “fallere”, “to deceive”) where an argument, position, or a person’s character is misrepresented or oversimplified in order to make it easier to attack or dismiss, often by reducing the complexity of an issue or person’s perspective and/or character to a simplistic or inaccurate representation. By creating a “straw man” – a caricatured version of someone’s views, position, or character – fallaciously, the tactic of reductionism is used to obscure the nuances and depth of the original argument, making it easier to attack and dismiss without engaging with the actual issues or complexities at hand.
The father’s role, while not necessarily conscious of the depth of consequences his malicious behaviors would cause, was undeniably harmful in effect. His allegations, if knowingly false, could be seen as a form of psychological manipulation, using CPS as a tool to gain control in a post-divorce conflict. This manipulation aligns with narcissistic tendencies, where the straw man fallacy—reducing the mother’s depth of character and understanding to a caricature of danger—was employed to demonize her. By oversimplifying her actions, such as the safe use of iodine, the father avoided engaging with her complexity, reinforcing his narrative of victimhood and control.
CPS’s processes, meanwhile, were riddled with bias. The agency’s refusal to consider the couple’s evidence and its distortion of their actions to fit a preconceived narrative reflect confirmation bias, where only information supporting the initial allegations was prioritized. This bias reduced the mother and her partner’s depth of character to the worst possible lens, painting them as villains in the eyes of the system and, by extension, the girls. The agency’s actions turned a protective mechanism into a weapon of harm, amplifying the father’s influence and sidelining the mother’s voice and reasoning, in an act of lawfare.
The legal implications of this case should be significant. Under Dutch law, the father’s false allegations could constitute slander and libel, potentially violating Articles 261 and 262 of the Criminal Code, however, the penalty for such a conviction is at most 5000 EUR, making prosecuting it cost prohibitive and a logical uncertainty to expect any type of justice from their criminal system. The emotional harm inflicted on the girls, through alienation and trauma, might also align with “mishandeling” (psychological assault) under Article 300. CPS’s persistence, despite no evidence, raises questions of gross negligence or “ambtsmisdrijf” (official misconduct) under Article 355, particularly given the agency’s admission of the mother committing no harm. These legal breaches underscore the criminal undertones of the experience, where institutional power was misused to devastating effect.
The natural rights dimension is equally troubling. The removal of the girls without evidence likely violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the right to family life and requires interventions to be necessary and proportionate. The children’s rights under Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes maintaining parent-child relationships absent clear harm, were similarly undermined. CPS’s actions, driven by bias and a lack of due process, failed to meet these thresholds, prioritizing protocol over reasoned justice.
The emotional toll on the mother and her partner is incalculable. The public humiliation of being branded as unfit, the trauma of losing the children, and the mother’s job and home loss constitute a form of reputational “murder.” The ongoing pain of the girls’ refusal to speak to them, enforced by Dutch family law’s rigidity, compounds this devastation. The mother, once a pillar of love and stability, has been reduced to a villain in her daughters’ eyes, a distortion fueled by CPS’s failure to protect the truth.
The girls, too, are victims of this tragedy. Their alienation from their mother, driven by CPS’s actions and the father’s allegations, has likely caused lasting emotional harm. Studies in family psychology emphasize that children thrive with access to both parents unless clear harm is proven; CPS’s intervention disrupted this balance, fostering anxiety, identity struggles, and a fractured sense of family. The trauma of their removal and the manipulation of their loyalties have left scars that may persist into adulthood, undermining their well-being.
The straw man fallacy was a key weapon in this saga. The father, possibly driven by narcissistic insecurities reduced the mother’s depth—her love, resilience, and informed choices like iodine supplementation—to a caricature of danger. CPS, in turn, mindlessly adopted this oversimplification, ignoring the couple’s evidence, their depth of insight, and distorting the context of their reasoning and actions to fit a narrative of harm. This reductionism erased the mother’s complexity, painting her as a villain in the eyes of the system and the girls, a tactic that served the father’s agenda and CPS’s need to justify its baseless actions.
In 1 Kings 3:16–28, two women living in the same house both claimed to be the mother of a single surviving child after one of their infants died. King Solomon, known for his wisdom, proposed to cut the living child in half, but the true mother pleaded for the child to be given to the other woman, revealing her identity and the wisdom of Solomon’s judgment.
The irony of this case lies in CPS’s role as an arbiter of truth, tasked with a modern equivalent of King Solomon’s dilemma: discerning the “true parent” whose love and care best serve the children. Like Solomon, CPS was meant to uncover authenticity through wisdom and fairness. Instead, it failed spectacularly, ensnared by psychological traps and institutional flaws. Confirmation bias led it to cling to outdated science and false narratives, availability bias skewed the girls’ perceptions, triangulation empowered the father’s narrative, and the straw man fallacy vilified the mother’s depth. The result was not protection but destruction—a loving family torn apart by slander, libel, and systemic negligence.
This failure enabled the father’s allegations, potentially criminal under Dutch law, to wield unchecked power. By acting without evidence, CPS became complicit in a form of child abuse through alienation, inflicting trauma on the girls and obliterating the mother’s reputation and livelihood. The agency’s refusal to acknowledge its errors, even when faced with no evidence of harm, mirrors the hubris of the Dutch childcare benefits scandal, where institutional arrogance trumped human lives. The girls, now estranged, carry the weight of a manipulated reality, their bond with their mother severed by a system that should have safeguarded it. This could also be considered legalized and state sanctioned kidnapping.
The mother and her partner, stripped of their family and dignity, face a future haunted by loss. Dutch law, rigid and unyielding, bars them from seeing the girls, cementing the injustice. The children, robbed of their mother’s love, navigate a world shaped by distortion, their perceptions warped by biases and trauma. CPS, meant to be a shield, became a sword, wielded not by wisdom but by prejudice, slashing through the fabric of a family.
In this tragedy, the true parent—the mother, whose love was unwavering—remains exiled, her voice silenced by a system that failed to listen. The irony is stark: CPS, tasked with Solomon’s sacred duty to use reason to judge, not only failed to find the truth but empowered falsehoods to prevail. Through psychological triangulation, Oedipal dynamics, Stockholm syndrome, parental alienation, and cognitive biases, it turned protection into persecution, leaving a legacy of broken bonds and shattered lives. The girls, once cherished daughters, are now strangers to their mother, a testament to the devastating power of institutional malfeasance and the enduring cost of false accusations and slander unchecked. In the spirit of the mother who couldn’t bear to have her only son slaughtered in front of her, the mother and her partner also gracefully relented.
