Lessons from The Prisoner in His Palace

I recently finished reading the book The Prisoner in His Palace by Will Bardenwerper about the imprisonment and execution of Saddam Hussein, but also his time as dictator of Iraq. Most of the reviews and descriptions don't really adequately represent the book. It's many things: complex, nuanced, and factual, but I think what it is mostly is a psychological portrait of a traumatized malignant narcissist and the people around him. You might be thinking that people like Saddam Hussein are one in a million, or maybe one in a billion and none of us will ever encounter anyone who is remotely like him and that it has little to do with anything related to custody and divorce proceedings. And I am certain that family courts would like to believe that as well. But there are important parallels between the trial of Saddam Hussein and many contested custody cases and it would be wise to examine and understand those parallels.

Saddam turned his trial into a circus with frequent rants about the court and its illegitimacy and demanded to be regarded as the leader of Iraq. His cabinet of cronies who were also on trial did likewise. What were they hoping to accomplish? Probably to buy themselves more time and possibly to wiggle out of a guilty verdict. Eventually a tougher judge was brought in to oversee the trial. He warned Saddam and company that if they kept disturbing and disrupting the court proceedings, they would be removed from the courtroom-- which happened several times. The accounts of Saddam's trial bears a disconcerting resemblance to descriptions of Jeffrey Mancuso at the custody trial for his daughter, Kayden. According to witnesses, he used endless rounds of accusations against Kayden's mother in court and endless rounds of calling the police out of court to create a chaotic circus and receive parenting time with no supervision, resulting in both their deaths when he killed Kayden and then himself. Unlike in the trial of Saddam Hussein, the judge allowed Mancuso to keep causing creating a chaotic scene in the courtroom. And unfortunately I have seen a similar type of courtroom circus, which the judge allowed to proceed, firsthand. This penchant for chaos and drama in court is not, then, limited to brutal dictators. Similar types of personality traits exist in some parents in contested custody cases, yet courts assume that all parents are equally fit in a custody case and simply plan for a best case scenario.

There is a higher likelihood of encountering people with personality disorders in custody proceedings and there is a good possibility of them hijacking court proceedings with their unruly behavior-- particularly if they represent themselves. One good way to handle this would be to employ public family law attorneys similar to the way that courts have public defense attorneys for criminal cases. It's a simple fact that divorce and relationship break ups and domestic violence are not confined solely to people who can afford attorneys. Many end up representing themselves, and for unstable parents without income or job, that might be especially likely. Having public family law attorneys would reduce the likelihood of unstable parents' dissembling behavior dragging out court proceedings and make the process smoother and the case clearer because outside parties could represent each parent and move the case forward more effectively. Given the fact that custody proceedings can affect the safety of the parents and children involved, it would seem to be a public good to have qualified representation for family law cases, regardless of ability to pay. The damage that children may endure from continued abuse, the possibility of murder, and the potential repercussions on the community like juvenile delinquency and substance abuse that might result from courts continuing to expose children to unsafe and unstable parenting situations make it in the best interest of the children, the parents and the community to provide legal representation to all parties, regardless of their ability to pay for a family law attorney. Public family law attorneys can't be used as a "magic bullet". It can't be the only thing courts do to reform their current policies and protect children and parents, but as part of a larger series of reforms (like I have outlined here), it could hypothetically do a lot of good.

Another similarity between Saddam Hussein and abusive parents is that sometimes they have moments where they can be nice. Bardenwerper included several different accounts in his book, including interviews with people who were close to Ragha Hussein, one of Saddam's daughters. Saddam threw lavish birthday parties for his daughters. Ragha treasured a necklace Saddam bought for her when she fell down at a market as a little girl and she made an entire room of her house into a shrine to her father-- even after he killed her husband and brother-in-law. Saddam's moments of kindness to his daughter and her dedication to him were not proof that he was a good parent with a healthy relationship to his children. These were the actions of very disturbed and unstable person who was seeking to control, manipulate and sometimes probably connect with his children. (His paranoia left him lonely and he was very emotionally fragile.) Ragha Hussein, her siblings, and the people of Iraq were not better off with Saddam continuing to be involved in his children's lives. Kayden Mancuso was not better off for having her father in her life and neither are the many other children who are court ordered to continue having close contact with an abusive or unstable parent. 

If a parent is unable or unwilling to follow court rules and behave civilly to the other parent in court, that should be regarded as a red flag by judges, mediators, evaluators, etc. I'm going to be rude to be blunt here: it's a no-brainer that people who are willing to harass their ex partner or spouse in court or be belligerent towards a judge or other court official will not be civil to their ex partner out of court. If they are unwilling to be civil in front of a judicial official or unwilling to be respectful to a judicial official, there is zero chance that they will be civil when no one is watching. 

I think that what is underlying so many of the policies and practices in family courts is an idealistic belief that nobody is truly bad and that if given enough chances and maybe a class or two, everyone will choose to be respectful and altruistic. It's a nice idea. But there are people out there who will repeatedly and willfully choose to hurt others. And many of them are in custody proceedings.