Proposed home curfews/ travel bans for Mothers banning their ex's from seeing the children?

[WorraLiberty]

AIBU to think that the proposed amendments to the Children's Act is a bit strange when they're talking about 'Home Curfews' for Mothers who break court orders over contact?

How would this help?

I'm absolutely all for fairness and equal parenting but how will a Curfew help and I wonder how it would be Policed?

Link here

That isn't really the point though is it? These punishments are supposed to be a punishment to prevent someone from breaking court orders ... or punishments to enforce a parent paying child support, because exactly the same punishments are legally allowed to be used by the courts in child support disputes too.

One could argue that stopping a non resident parent from driving by removing their driving licence for non payment of child support isn't going to be in the child's best interests either if the non resident parent has contact and needs the car for that or needs a car to go to work to pay the child support they owe.

They are supposed to be deterrents.

But they won't act to deter the 10% of intractable contact disputes.

If you were the kind of person likely to be deterred by having your non existant car removed or your non existant opportunity to go out of an evening, then you would not be the kind of person who is likely to show flagrant contempt for a court order.

Like those signs on buses that always make me laugh - if you don't pay your fare you will be ashamed when everyone looks at you! If you don't care about paying your bus fare, you are hardly likely to give a damn if other people judge you for it.

The really intractable cases usually involve some degree of psychological problem. The government will never do anything about this, because frankly, what can be done? Other than trying to make people think at an early stage what do they want out of relationships with other human beings, what do they mean to do when they bring a child into the world?

But I think there will always be a small minority of really tough cases. I don't know what will crack them. But these crazy proposals don't come anywhere close.

I agree that the proposals don't particularly do much else, but the defendant will be informed of potential sanctions at the beginning of the case rather than if an order is made.

In DHs case it could well make a difference if his ex thought her passport could be removed as she dies have a liking for holidays both with and without SD. in the same vein, costs can be awarded to the petitioner, but very rarely are as the respondent is usually a poor single mum.

In our case and many others this means not returning to court as often as needed due to cost implications. DHs ex can do as she likes throughout the whole process she's not had to pay a penny. maybe the risk of even having to pay a court fee would help focus her mind a little.

Anita - the gov is removing public funding from contested contact cases. So most people will have to turn up and do it themselves. So increasing the severityof penalities for failing to comply with court orders, whilst at the same time removing the opportunity for legal help and advice at court seems to put it politely, ever so slightly bonkers.

I wish they would give travel bans and public house bans to absent fathers and mothers that refuse to stick to plans to see their dc, and leave the dc crying by the window wondering what the flip they did that their parents doesn't show up as promised

increasing the severityof penalities for failing to comply with court orders, whilst at the same time removing the opportunity for legal help and advice at court seems to put it politely, ever so slightly bonkers.

In a nutshell!

And of course the most determined litigants will turn up in court representing themselves, leading to even more pressure on court time...

I wonder if we will see "deterrent" court fees being introduced, as we will see in employment tribunals. You won't get near a court unless you can afford it.

Out of sight - out of mind.

thejusticegap.com/News/its-the-litigants-who-will-suffer/

The whole thing is bonkers - unless you think only the wealthy should get justice!

Anita - the gov is removing public funding from contested contact cases. So most people will have to turn up and do it themselves. So increasing the severityof penalities for failing to comply with court orders, whilst at the same time removing the opportunity for legal help and advice at court seems to put it politely, ever so slightly bonkers

I fail to see how the two have any correlation whatsoever...

As for representation, many people use Mckenzie friends. Far cheaper than solicitors and in many cases just as, if not more effective.

My DHs ex hasn't even seen a solicitor throughout the whole thing. She isn't and never has been publicly funded. She ignores court summons and solicitors letters. She ignored three solicitors letters and a court summons, them emailed DHs solicitor three days before court claiming she'd moved home and the tenants had only just passed on the post. The home she moved out of was her mothers. Our solicitor ripped her a new one for that trick lol.

The removal of public funding makes makes I difference to our case. She refused mediation, no repercussions for that either. Court is free for her because she is the defendant. She knows she would have to pay fr mediation, and that by not bringing a solicitor she looks like a poor young, bullied single mum, compared to my older, heavy built DH.

That's the facts in our case. I know its different for others.

Ps she's never contested contact, its simply that it can only ever be on her tens and her terms alone. We get one night a week as she knows that the minimum she can get away with.

After the first court date, she was ordered to allow once a week contact building up to full days over four months. Six weeks after that he'd seen SD twice, all other contact was cancelled last minute. He applied to court to have her brought back, and the judge agreed. They went back quickly after that. When she git the court notice, she texted DH asking why they were going back so quickly, after all 'he'd been seeing SD'.

Funnily enough between that time and the court date he fid see SD every week, and she tried to argue she'd complied with the court.....

She git wrong off the judge, but just a telling off, nothing substantial ever, not has she ever been threatened with anything more.

Sparks, I am afraid I disagree v strongly about Mckenzie friends being helpful.but then again I have only had experience of two. They were both appalling, but I appreciate that may not be a very scientific sample. Nevertheless, I deal with about 5 private law cases a month. I do not believe there will be anywhere near enough willing and able volunteers to fill the gap once the funding plug is pulled.

The reason this is important is that I try very hard to help my clients understand wha is going on, wh their children need a relationship with both parents. Yes, there are a few cases of utterly recalcitrant frankly evil people who don't give a shit and just want to hurt their ex regardless of pain they inflict on their children. But these people are rare.

The vast majority of mothers I meet who are causing trouble around contact have genuine concerns, even though they might not seem wholly reasonable to outsiders. As I said before, what makes these mothers oppositional? Did thousands of decent cheery dads just get suckered into relationships with pyscho bitches?

Or perhaps do these decent dads need to give a little more thought to the part they played in the breakdown of the relationship and the need to show a little thought and sensitivity? Lots of contact cases are a nightmare as the dads insist on brand new girlfriend playing hands on role right from outset.

It is never as black and white as these gov 'policy' makers seem to wish to think.

Spero- you seem to be blaming the men a lot.

Anecdotes aren't data, but ime it's been pretty 50-50 who has been unreasonable.

Or perhaps do these decent dads need to give a little more thought to the part they played in the breakdown of the relationship and the need to show a little thought and sensitivity?

The reasons for the breakdown of the relationship is completely and utterly irrelevant to the children's well being ( abuse aside )

What you are suggesting is an NRP should in affect become a second class parent if in the RP's opinion they were to blame for the relationship split.

As regards Mckenzies, i accept there are probably some poor ones. But then that's no different at all from solicitors. And lets not forget, a solicitor benefits from procrastinating and antagonising a case.

Imo withdrawing tax payer funded legal representation for someone who wilfully ignores court orders repeatedly should be welcomed.

I appreciate I have only data from my own experience in courts, but that is nearly 15 years now, so it is quite a lot of data.

I agree it is probably 50/50 men and women who behave badly. Which is why I am perplexed at government plans to crack down on mothers. I repeat - when is the gov going to send the same message of condemnation about fathers who walk away?

Of course, in an ideal world all adults would display emotional intelligence and rise aboventhe hurt and bitterness of broken relationships and always put the children first. But I have to live and work in the real world. And it really does not help a bitter and protracted contact dispute to have the other side insisting that their new partner plays a significant role early on. And in my experience men more often do this - probably because statistics show that men will more quickly repartner, just as the are more likely to have financial recovered from the split in about five years, while the mother sinks further into poverty.

Totally agree Spero.

Sparks - public funding is being withdrawn from ALL cases, save for some bizarre and il defined cases of violence. I think at the moment you will only qualify if you have gone to a refuge.

It will be utter chaos. The police are going to have to become the front line agency for dealing with disputes about children. I do hope the gov are ready for this.

And believe me, there is utterly no reason or desire on my part to drag these kind of cases out. They are depressing and poorly paid. I do my best to help my clients understand the law and the importance for their child's emotional well being that he or she is given permission to love both parents. Good luck to the McKenzie friend who wants to take on that sorry and thankless task.

I agree too, Spero.

"And it really does not help a bitter and protracted contact dispute to have the other side insisting that their new partner plays a significant role early on"

Boundaries. Most of the problems on MN, let alone contact ones, would never occur if people understood what was theirs to deal with (and poke their nose into) and what wasn't.

There was an opportunity here for the government to be grown up about this and set a standard that was reasonable, fair and far-reaching. But they have fucked up once again. (not party political).

I think men, before they can have sex, have to donate to their own sperm-bank.

Then have a compulsory vasectomy.

Then if a couple want to get pregnant they have to sign a legally binding contract, agreeing what their plans are for bringing up the child, and in case of separation.

They can then make a withdrawal and get pregnant.

There may be a few things I've not thought through properly, but I'm going to send it to Dave Cam.

Great idea.

They can then make a withdrawal and get pregnant

No wonder the withdrawal method often results in pregnancy

There may be a few things I've not thought through properly

Yes. Starting with the fact we don't live in a Nazi state....

*Sparks - public funding is being withdrawn from ALL cases, save for some bizarre and il defined cases of violence. I think at the moment you will only qualify if you have gone to a refuge.

It will be utter chaos. The police are going to have to become the front line agency for dealing with disputes about children. I do hope the gov are ready for this.

And believe me, there is utterly no reason or desire on my part to drag these kind of cases out. They are depressing and poorly paid. I do my best to help my clients understand the law and the importance for their child's emotional well being that he or she is given permission to love both parents. Good luck to the McKenzie friend who wants to take on that sorry and thankless task.*

The police? Why?

I'm not questioning your professional experience but i've witnessed for myself the way solicitors can protract matters for their own ends. And it was highly profitable for them to do so.

Well the existence of Mckenzies suggests they are prepared to take on the role.

Sparks - if people cannot afford to go to court, who do you think is going to get the phone calls, the requests for assistance, to turn up at some ones house to get the children?

My bet is it will be the police as I can already see it happening. Many of my cases involve both sides calling the police as a matter of routine to try to bolster their case agains the other.

I am sure there are some duff solicitors out there. But I have never met one who wantedto 'drag out' a private law case - write stupid and inflammatory letters yes, seen a lot of those.

But castigating crap lawyers seems an odd way of attempting to justify the states increasingly cack handed way of trying to sort out a genuine and potentially catastrophic social problem. Blaming one half of the equation is the kind of blinkered nonsense I had hoped was confined to Fathers for Justice andothers of that sorry ilk. Not my own government. Had hoped for slightly better from supposed educated and intelligent people. more fool me.

O well, at least I will get to say I told you so in about six months time when whole system collapses. Dd you know that number of admin staff at Bristol Cointy Court has been cut from 160 to 60 in just years? S even when the legion of bright eyed McKenzie friends turn up waving their swords of truth and justice, there will be no one to process the aplication forms or tell the Judge you have arrived at court.

I think Huansagsins idea has considerable merit. It will stop all these evil psycho bitches stealing all the nice men's sperm and hey! all the problems will be gone.

My XP would call the police at the drop of a hat...so I can certainly see foresee what you are describing Spero.

Mind you, isn't court ordered contact a civil matter? And as such, not really under police jurisdiction? (Not that my xp understands this, hence why he continually phoned the police for whatever misdemeanour he could think of.)

I'm not sure tbh, hence why I am asking.

Yes, it is a civil matter so the police really don't want to get involved and will often refuse to do anything, unless you are reporting something that could be criminal such as abduction or violence.

But my real worry is that you are going to be left with a whole load of people in a very difficult emotional position who now won't get any legal help to guide them thru the process. Who else are they going to call of ex is on the doorstep with new girlfriend, or if ex won't hand children over at agreed time?

Gov seems to think everyone will go off to mediation or just sit down over supper by the aga and just chat like civilised people. They are all idiots.

I do think we need robust laws but they need to be fairly enforced. And that means calling ALL parents to account, not just mothers. Curfews for mothers who breach contact orders? Fair enough, as long as we can have absentee fathers in high Viz jackets picking up dog poo in their local park - a weekend for every birthday present they didn't buy.