To tell exp that he can now only see dd on weekends as agreed in court order....

[naughtyorouttacontrol]

The court order says that exp should have dd for one day per week saturday or sunday, which he agreed to.

That was a year ago. In that year he has seen dd very few times on the weekend certainly less then 10 possibly even lees then 5 days on the weekends. He does shift work and sometimes collects dd from childminder at 11 on his way back from a sleep in, as it seems to me he wants to keep his weekends free for himself. And if he has a day off in the week sometimes has dd.

He lets her down alot and makes promises that he doesnt keep. I feel that he sees dd when it suits him and is not committed. Then he is getting angery with me because I want him to be consistant.

DD has just started reception and I have told him that we now need to stick to the court order and he can see dd on the weekend. I also said if he wants he can have her for a sleepover on friday or saturday nights. To which he replied 'I am not your babysitter'. And has told me in the past he 'has a life' when I have asked him to see dd on weekends.

DD is only 4 and gets very tired after school and I really want to try to get her into a good routine. Also I would like to sometimes have time to myself on the weekends just as exp does so that I can do somethings I need to do like go to the gym etc.

So am I being unreasonable to say he cannot see her during the week?

Mitmoo "The fact you have to ask for a case to be reserved to a judge who reflects your values is thoroughly wrong"

Er no....I can't think how you got that from what glitterkitten said - I thought s/he was talking about continuity in decisions in which case it is sensible to ask for a judge who has heard elements of the case before in order to try and achieve as much consistency as possible? Not about "nobbling" the judge....?

Although I do agree the system is flawed but the law is always going to be a fairly blunt instrument when it comes to governing or attempt to govern highly emotional family dynamics which is why the move to mediation etc was made.

I see Fathers4justice has finally updated their website and removed any references to the paedophile supporter they were quoting as having 'established' parental alientation syndrome. Wonder how many fathers got fucked over taking that kind of shite advice? Hopefully most did their research.

I can see both sides of this situation. I was stunned at what happened to my dh trying to have contact with his son. I also know women who have had to plead with courts/cafcass to keep their kids safe from violent, drug addled wasters. The system is far from perfect, what is in life? Certainly I sometimes struggle to understand how seemingly good partners, good enough to have kids with, can morph in to devil's spawn when it comes to contact and maintenance. Doesn't statistically add up to me, that there are that many feckless abusers as the family courts are told.

Aware I will be shot for saying so.

You wont be shot by me perfumed, certainly not.

And thanks wrecka. was thinking the same but my posts are clearly just like a bone to a dog to mitmoo. I don't have the energy anymore!!

Mitmoo, I think Wrecka sid it very well: "Although I do agree the system is flawed but the law is always going to be a fairly blunt instrument when it comes to governing or attempt to govern highly emotional family dynamics which is why the move to mediation etc was made."

That doesn't mean the system is unremittingly bad, or evil, or biased. Or that the people working in it are idiots.

They are people like glitter, trying their best for the kids and the familes involved.

So stop grinding your axe and try offering constructive help and support to the OP like I haven't done

WRECKA Glitter is giving the legal speak I am telling how it actualy works in real life for the parents and children who are actually involved; The only thing my ex and I agreed on is that him taking me to court for contact was the wrost decision of his life.

Solicitors have a vested interest in telling you they are only resolving conflict. They will represent whooever contacts them no matter what is right for the child or not.

I am not blaming the solicitors but the reality is that when it comes to contact issues we are in a world of adversarial judgements not one where in reality the best interest of the child actually matters.

I don't have a wine emoticon on my phone curry. otherwise I'd offer you a glass.

Cheers

and here's one for you

Thanks glitter. It really is one of those jobs where the glory is hidden isn't it?

Something you said earlier about the legal aid cuts I was wondering. Won't it actually stop certain parents from dragging non cases through the courts like my dh's ex? She was on perpetual (it seemed) legal aid and we were paying £300 an hour and flying to London whenever summoned on ever more spurious grounds. Won't that help ease up the case loads? Sift the urgent and genuine from the plodding vengeful timewaste cases?

There are flaws in the system; lack of judicial continuity, the impotence (acknowledged by senior members of the judiciary such as LJ Coleridge and Munby J.) in enforcing orders, flawed reporting methods and unacceptable delays. Some of these flaws can be more readily addressed than others.
Unfortunately, the ham fisted approach of a government intent on saving money on justice for its own citizens while spending billions dropping bombs on others, will only make matters worse; ditto the misguided move to compulsory mediation which does not work in high conflict cases and will lead to greater delays and less satisfactory outcomes.
If we want better outcomes for parents and children we need to invest more in our courts; we need more specialist family judges, for a start.
For all that, most cases, in my experience, are resolved by negotiation outside court; at the very least, the issues that need to proceed to a contested hearing will have been considerably narrowed. Unless you are in the courts week in, week out, you don't hear about the majority of cases where a reasonable or good result is achieved. You will only hear of the cases that fall through the cracks- as some do.
The few family law solicitors and barristers I have encountered who behave disreputably are in a minority and quickly get a reputation that does them and their clients few favours where it counts- with the bench.

PERFUMED The great danger of the removal of legal aid is that the potential abusive parent, if wealthier will win the court case. Most solicitors, if any, won't represent parents for nothing. You will end up with child contact disputes being resolved by who can finance the best legal aid rather than what is in the best interest of the child.

Of course they can self represent but the ablity to self represent doesn't mean they are the best or worst parent.

I agree it will remove some abuses of the system but the cost to the child worries me deeply.

Perfumed legal aid cuts will indeed pull the rug out from under litigants such as your DH's ex.

However my concern is that legal aid will still be widely available in cases where someone utters the magic words " domestic violence"

( ahem, discreetly pointing out once again the gaps in a certain posters knowledge on the subject)

Anywhoo, my fear is that there will be those who will level that allegation because they know that will give them legal aid and they know that's the only way to get it. ( would you put it past DH's ex?!). This will lead to injustice for people such as your dh who might find themselves not only fighting for contact but also having to defend themselves on allegations of dv. It's an awful scenario.

It almost encourages allegations of dv due to financial gain IMO. Furthermore it's a huge disadvantage to those who really are suffering dv who will inevitably be eyed with unmerited suspicion.

It's a nonsense. It's politics. It's not the judiciary nor solicitors who have raised voices against this, on behalf of people who don't even know yet what effect this could have on them.

tyr I feel as though you are saying what I'm trying to say, albeit with greater eloquence and backing.

I'm tired. So yeah, what tyr said.

I see your point Mitmoo.

My dh gave up on his pricey lawyer after a year and self repped and finally got somewhere. It took months of work and put a real strain on us, newly married and I was having to help him sift through the paper detritus of his previous marriage ( divorced long before we met). He felt he could make his case better for it being the truth, and no longer felt the 'tit for tat' legal speak was helping.

It can be just as unfair on wealthier parents though, as above. Dh was initially funding barristers and flights out of our joint income, his ex had no such concerns. She was receiving maintenance from dh of 1200 pcm, agreed by dh when they first split without benefit of advice. He couldn't afford this, had been living in a dingy bedsit when we met and indeed the court cut it to 600pcm. This was for one child. Fair enough, as a percentage of his salary. What I didn't understand was, his ex was getting all benefits, maintenance and legal aid. She actually had more money left over each month that dh. Great, good for her, but if her disposable income was greater than his, how come she was entitled to legal aid?

I do think it's due an overhaul, although I agree there are real worries on how this can be fairly done.

And I agree MJ courts are best avoided if at all possible. Especially in family cases.

At the end of the day, when solicitors and courts have bowed out, that family will still have to exist as a (albeit dysfunctional!) family.

The more that can be agreed upon between the parties the better. Absolutely.

op YABU. You are both DDs parents, both should be able to see her after school. I think YWBU to not send DD to pre arranged contact because she was ill, again both parents are capabl of caring for a poorly child. DD is not just your child, you are not doing your ex a favour by 'allowing' him contact. Your DD has a right to contact and a relationship with her father, why are you trying to make this more difficult than it needs to be?

Glitterkitten,

Thanks but I'm well into my fourth glass of a heady Australian Shiraz with a reassuringly high alcohol content so any apparent eloquence may well be on the wane at this stage.
You are not alone in your pessimism about DV and legal aid cuts. Earlier this year, the president of the FLBA warned that it may provide a perverse incentive for false allegations to be made in order to qualify for public funding.
In a direct affront to the principles of justice, the accused will not be entitled to funding.
Lucy Reed has highlighted this "anomaly" in her Pink Tape blog:

pinktape.co.uk/2011/07/violence-legal-aid/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PinkTape+%28Pink+Tape%29

Glitter your patronising defence of a system that is widely acknowledged to be failing children is frankly well failed patronisations.

You say I am wrong on every level as the courts are not adversarial. But they are! Solicitors represent which parent is paying them directly or through legal aid. How do the abusive parents get represented if they don't?

It's not just me a lone voice saying it, it's out there, it's nothing new. You may like to believe you are working for the greater good but the system is fundamentally flawed, and no one person, no matter how well meaning, can make a significant difference without the system itself being overhauled.

blogs.findlaw.co.uk/solicitor/2010/01/family-court-proceedings-too-complicated-adversarial.html

Family Court Proceedings 'Too Complicated & adversarial'

By Robert Clarkson on January 28, 2010 8:30 AM | No TrackBacks
The Ministry of Justice has announced a wide-ranging review of family court proceedings and the current family justice system in England and Wales. Justice Secretary Jack Straw wants an expert panel to examine reform proposals that better support children and parents through the divorce process.

The panel will look at the best ways to avoid confrontational court hearings and encourage the use of mediation to deliver fairer and less acrimonious settlements.

"We know that for many families the current family justice system is proving far too complicated, and its adversarial nature can lead to bitter, lengthy court hearings," said Mr. Straw. "This only serves to prolong what is already a stressful and emotionally draining experience."

I could find references to the courts failures due to it's adversarial nature all day long. Glitter you may tell me it's not adversarial but when solicitors represent clients who both want different outcomes for the child, and the solicitors argue their clients cases, thats adversarial.

As for reserving judges for continuity, while it can be a very good thing, God knows there were judges I'd love to have retained, not for continuity but because they understood and agreed with my point of view, it's another way to abuse the system. Get a judge you know will favour your client and try to keep them. Not what's best for the child but what is best for the client.

If you have a judge who disagreed with you, you wouldn't dream of retaining them and a lot depends on CAFCASS and//or the judge you get on the day.

As for being a travesty to refuse to adhere to CAFCASS's orders, please! If a court made an order that put a child at risk, which happens so regularly the time, just go to any domestic violence website to see that, the parents with the courage to stand upto CAFCASS when as they make incredulous recommendations is to be admired.

You would have to trust CAFCASS before blindly following their judgements, and most just dont.

And the prize for the best googler goes to......

YAWN

My ex used that babysitter phrase bit to be honest he is the childrens dad so they go with him when he asks them to & they have nothing on. To my mind, he's more like a grandparent than a dad as he takes no responsibilty BUT that's his decision & that's the dad the children have.

YANBU.

Mitmoo-

How would you change things then?

I'm a bit torn on this one. If he works shifts/irregular patterns it does seem a bit mean to make him stick to a rigid weekend arrangement that benefits you so you are always free to go out at weekends and he never is, and yet he is not able to see his daughter at times during the week when he is free to have her, and has to miss some weekends because he is working, presumably. Can you not come to a new arrangement that reflects the needs/work patterns of both of you?

Glitter posts: And no Mitmoo family law is not adversarial in it's approach or ethos. That is simply not the case. I know you won't accept that, but if that's the basis of your argument, it's already a doomed argument.

"Senior judge seeks reform of 'adversarial' family law courts

A senior family court judge has called for a less adversarial approach in the family justice system to stop parents using children as a "battlefield" and "ammunition".

Sir Nicholas Wall, president of the Family Division of the High Court, made his comments in a speech to the charity Families Need Fathers. "

blogs.findlaw.co.uk/solicitor/2010/09/senior-judge-seeks-reform-of-adversarial-family-law-courts.html

Glitter do you want to tell that to Sir Nicholas Wall because he doesn't believe it either? I could find a hundred more quotes to show how the system is adversarial . I have no idea why you're denying it.