Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.
Got any views on the family justice system?(55 Posts)
It would take me forever and a day to detail my thoughts on the family (in)justice system.
Well personally I think children should actually be thought of first and not the non resident parent or anybody else. Their safety should be paramount. I've read so many times about children being made to have contact with the non resident parent when it simply isn't appropriate. This is something that should be addressed imo. The children have a right to contact with both parents, not the other way around. Sensitive subject for me at the moment. This is especially relevant when there is abuse involved..... The way it all reads to me is "let's find a way to make it is easier for the father (man)" as 9 times out of 10 the father is the non resident parent.
Children should have the right to contact with both parents as long as they are safe, happy and properly taken care of.
I'll email more as well.
I had the final hearing over contact between my 3 year old daughter and her non resident father yesterday. The first time they will have contact is this saturday... she has no idea who he is, and I am expected to leave her with him.
Gigantaur is right, the injustice is terrible.
When a section 7 CAFCASS report says at a childs pace what they actually mean, is when they have time... and it has nothing to do with what is suitable with the needs of individual children.
Sorry but I disagree, when the none resident parent wants to have an active involvement in their child's life, the Family Justice System does not do anything to make it easier for them.
My brother's been going through hell over his ex-wife p*ssing him about with access left right and centre and she's already been warned about it once but still does it.
I would like to know why it is possible for a female pwc to alter a childs name on a birth certificate etc if there is no contact at all from the other parent. Yet a male pwc has no right to do this and must apply to the courts leaving the decision in someone elses hands.
The explanation for this is that it is unusual for males to have sole care of children.
What bloody ridiculous double standards, that reek of sexism. If this was the other way round there would be an uproar.
um... are you sure that is correct?
yes it is true. the mother can but father can't.
Is this for England and Wales alone or also for Scotland and N Ireland?
Gigantaur that is only true if the father does not have parental responsibility. Mothers automatically have PR, fathers will have it if they are married to the mother, or, since the law changed in 2003, if they are named on the birth certificate. The consent of all persons with PR is required to change a child's name. Even a mother with a residence order in favour of a child must seek the consent of the father if he has PR. It is becoming more rare that fathers do not have PR since the 2003 law change.
Yes but where the absent parent has no contact with the children and are uncontactable 9to as permission) the female parent would be able to alter the names, but if the pwc is male they still have to go through the courts and prove why they want the name changed.
This is correct and we are currently in the process of doing it. It really is a farce.
Even if uncontactable, if the absent parent has PR then a mother with care does need a court order. Who told you that a female PWC could change a child's name even if the absent parent had PR? It may be more likely that the absent parent does not have PR in those circs e.g. if the father's identify was never known. However in the opposite circumstances a mother's identity is always going to be known which presumably why the mother automatically has PR.
I am with you on this mjinhiding we are in a similar position, its a very sexist system where the father has no rights and has to pay thousands of pounds to see their own children, when this is automatic for the woman to be the primary carer who decided this?
Fathers have the god given right to be able to see their children as much as the women do! It is a farce of a system and something that needs to change.
The Family Justice System is an oxymoron as it does not seek to dispense justice.
It is utterly impossible to achieve justice when repeated breaches of an Order of a Court are not enforced; when a parent is schooled by third sector agencies on how to 'play' the system; when the obtaining of resident parent status is treated as being an end worth whatever means are necessary; when a child's needs and wishes are placed in a queue behind whatever whimsical fancies the resident parent is currently experiencing; when mediation and collaborative law is deliberately tactically avoided at great cost to the taxpayer; when grandparents are forcibly excluded from a child's life.
I could go on all night.
I have three points to make and I make tham as a professional working within the family law courts. I will keep it brief....
1. Any lawyer working in this field should be collaboratively trained as part of their continuous professional development. If collaborative seeions were compulsory prior to court appointments, much of court time, the parties time and legal time (and therefore often public money) and most importantly, the inherent adversarial nature deeply personal and traumatic experience could be reduced substantially.
2. CAFCASS reports have been spectacularly factually incorrect wrong in my experience to the extent that seriously damaging information has influenced the court to make decisions damaging to all parties concerned. Cafcass letters/reports to court should always be revealed to the parties.
3. The feelings and resource of the wider family, especially grandparents, should be more widely considered and utilised.
LittlePushka-I couldn't agree more with what you say. The biggest single weakness in the current system relates to the attempted creation of a new 'status quo'. Too often one parent will deliberately avoid collaborative law and flout court orders, in the belief that by stringing everything out for as long as possible they are enhancing the chances of a personally successful outcome at the eventual hearing.
But where does the child's needs and wishes come into that reasoning?
mjinhiding-So sorry to hear of the problems which you are having to cope with.
The part of all this which makes me somewhat ashamed, is that certain womens 'charities' have played a leading role in creating the shambolic system which exists today. You cannot right a wrong by creating a new wrong.
Children first, parents second, gender issues last.
Well, I don't see it as all roses on the other side of the fence either. I shouldn't have to be taken to court because I was advised to stop contact by ss, gps, the police etc as ex was abusing the children. I have to go through untold stresses (whilst currently pregnant), my 8 year old dd self harming and saying she wants to kill herself as if she's dead she doesn't have to see him, and spending hours on the phone to agencies and professionals trying to get paperwork sorted out.
I haven't had an initial hearing yet but from everything I've read, it's unusual for a "father" to have no contact at all. Also, the father doesn't have a right to see a child, the child has a right to see the father. A child should NOT be forced into contact when there is abuse involved and they are bloody terrified to see him. I await my hearing in August, but I don't know what I'll do if he is granted contact as I'm terrified of what my poor dd will do and her brothers are similarly scared
Children should definitely be put first and from what I can see, they aren't, the non resident parent (usually the father) is the one that is put first regardless of what they've done to a child.
CheeseandGherkins-Your situation sounds horrendous, I can't even begin to imagine the hell that you are going through. The critical issue is that all incidents of abuse MUST be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted. It's completely unacceptable for a physically or sexually abusive parent to be allowed anywhere near to any children. By the same token, it's also completely unacceptable for a parent to be prevented from being with their child purely as a result of unsubstantiated and/or malicious 'tactical' allegations.
If you want to read a longer account of it I've got a thread running on legal, I've even name changed recently because of it all so I felt safer posting.
I can assure you though that there is nothing tactical in the slightest with me, all I can do is act on what my children have told me and it does ring true as ex was abusive (physically and emotionally) to me and has recently been given a harassment warning because of causing trouble at the door (with the kids in the house which terrified them even more )
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.