But her posts point to other reasons for loss of custody, which she fails to address in detail. I'm (personally) suggesting the well known fact, that one parent's opinion, can contain a wide swath of bias, and therefore can be discounted until other evidence shows-up.Another post above i said it is obviously bias, but the only thing to go off of. Therefore yout cannot debunk it without all the information. The 'debunker' made tons of assumptions to get to his point.
Based on vast previous custody situations, there are always two sides to a story.
With only one side explained, (plus her paranoia) we (I) can logically say that her story has little-to no merit, without evidence from the other side or court documents.
Just because I may claim something is true, does not make it fact, or that alt media "makes" my claim true simply by re-posting my personal opinions.
The debunk is from lack of gathered evidence, paranoia, plus her light mentions of important custody info not fully explained, but still is claimed "as true" on alt. media.
Adding those up, is this: "not regarded as believable" when posted on alt media "as true".
The alt media is claiming this story is true.
Mick (OP) is debunking the alt media story (article), because the writers have insufficient evidence.