to think family courts are a flaming joke!

[tryingtobeabetterperson]

I have read so many posts on here, groups on FB and other forums of desperate women who have left abusive partners to protect their children just for the courts to award contact and the abuse continues because unless it becomes physical the courts seem loathe to make contact supervised.

I know all about children needing fathers but even abusive ones that will hurt them or screw them up emotionally??

/rant

I had to post and run after my question about emotional abuse yesterday. The responses I got illustrate the point I was going to make if I had time to stay and post though, that the current system is inadequate for dealing with non physical abuse.

Emotional and psychological abuse is virtually impossible to prove, legally.
EA and PA have long lasting, proven damaging effects on children who witness them as well as those who are directly victims of it.
Lack of adequate alternatives means that currently, ordering children to have contact with an EA parent means forcing the RP to remain a target for abuse.
Without sufficient proof, the court cannot fully consider EA and PA when determining suitability for contact.

Everyone loses in the current scenario. If a false allegation is made and the court gives it some consideration in determining contact level, a good father and his child miss out on vital contact. If a true allegation is made and the court gives it some consideration, the severity of abuse can't be properly taken into account and more contact may be granted than is appropriate. If contact is granted and an order made, it falls to the victim to take the children to the handover or make alternate arrangements. With a lack of contact centres meaning courts are loathed to order their use in all but the most severe cases simply because of lack of availability, this puts victims right back in the firing line and means the children are witness to yet more abuse. If abuse is claimed but cannot be considered due to the nature of the abuse and the burden of proof the courts must abide by, then it sends a message to the abuser that what they did wasn't wrong, it was acceptable and can continue which gives them no incentive to change or work through whatever made them abusive in the first place and risks the whole sorry state of affairs continuing with any subsequent partners.

I absolutely agree with the previous posters who said that the assertion that contact is the child's right and that is what the courts are upholding rings hollow when absent parents can obtain a court order forcing the RP to provide the children for contact, yet there is no comparable order that can force an absent parent to show up and be involved. That disparity suggests that absent parents can choose when and if to have contact which clearly cannot be in the child's best interests.

I wish you all the best fuzzywuzzy I can't imagine what you and your children must be going through. Try to rise above his posturing and be strong. Children are more wise than we give them credit for sometimes, hopefully they will get their point across to the court.

"If abuse is claimed but cannot be considered due to the nature of the abuse and the burden of proof the courts must abide by, then it sends a message to the abuser that what they did wasn't wrong, it was acceptable and can continue which gives them no incentive to change or work through whatever made them abusive in the first place"

Totally agree with this.

Yes - I always ask the men's rights groups what they propose for the men who just walk away. They always ignore that question.

'it is also my experance that the traditional view of the nasty bitch mother withholding contact is very rare, granted my experance is biased due to my work but in that experance you show me a man who claims that and 99% of the time I could show you a manipulative violent abuser who has little or no interest in his kids he just wants it to be everyone else's fault or to further control and abuse.'

I post on Wikivorce there are a lot of NRPs (let's call them fathers) struggling for contact, are 99% of them manipulative violent abusers?
I've two family mambers who have had contact unilateraly stopped.

I suppose they're manipulative violent abusers, apart from they're not.

This thread does seem to be pointing towards the father being in the wrong ,most of the time.

I agree its not 99% men who complain are abusers. In my experience it is more 60/40 I.e. 40% of difficult contact cases primarily the responsibility of,the woman.

Dadthelion you need to stop and think about why women would want to prevent their children seeing their Dad? Just to be nasty? Women know that this will backfire if there is not a very good reason for it. They know that preventing access for no good reason will come back to them later when the child grows up and learns what happened.

Mothers are intrinsically aware of their child's future and are doing what they can to ensure it is safe and healthy. Of course not all mothers are like that but it is rare for a woman not to want the best for their children.

Dad, I have spent a lot of years running various DV services every single mother I work with is a victim of abuse so yes every single nrp is a violent manipulative abuser.

But I bet their brothers or mums or best friend wouldn't believe it.

Most of those violent manipulative abusers would never admit it under circumstances where they don't have to very few admit it when they should have to.

I did highlight that my experience is biased due to my work so try not to use it as evidence that the poor fathers are being let down every single father I am talking about is proven to be a violent manipulative abuser.

Polly - sorry, it is not as rare as you think.

Dadthelion I'm not sure I am reading the same thread as you. No one has said fathers are bad. What has been said is that abusive fathers are bad. I don't think anyone could dispute that a system which allows a continuation of abuse without any recourse for the abuser or need for them to stop the abuse, is wrong and needs to change.

The term father has mostly been used here to represent abusive non resident parents. This is for two reasons. Firstly that this is a site predominantly used by women with care of children, so in their cases the NRP will be the father and secondly because statistics back up the use of the generalisation that an abusive NRP is more likely to be the father. Men are massively more likely to have a criminal conviction for abuse against his spouse than a woman is against hers. Men are massively more likely to be the NRP. Men are massively more likely to walk away and cut contact with their children than women. When cases come to court, it is massively more likely to be because these absent, abusive fathers have sought to bring a case.

Finally, the posters you mention on Wikivorce, well, if they are abusive they aren't likely to admit it are they? That somewhat goes against the very nature of an abuser. People who abuse do not believe that what they do is abusive, they see it as their right, or something they were provoked to do and therefore not their fault. It is human nature to paint the best possible picture of ourselves and to post, albeit anonymously, that you battered your wife and that's why she took the kids and left or you spent years systematically wearing her down to a shadow of her former self for your own gain isn't going to win you any friends, so no one is going to put their hands up to that. Far better for them to focus on the allegedly unreasonable actions of their ex and not front up to anything they may have done to lead to them.

Spero - Nobody knows how many false allegations of abuse are made by women because they are almost impossible to prove where the abuser is manipulative and clever and knows how to play the courts. So your statistics are highly subjective.

What we DO know is that being a mother is always a huge commitment and a bond that can't break unless the mother has gone through some serious damage - whereas being a father frequently is a bond that is willingly broken by the father. Most absent fathers are not absent because they are being denied contact. They are absent because they have left and don't want to be there any more.

My statistics are based on 100s of cases over 10 years. I have seen a number of cases where women clearly lie and exaggerate.

I am afraid you have a very idealised view of womanhood. We are just as capable of being abusive as men. I have met a lot of women who either didn't love their children or 'loved' them in unhealthy, stifling ways.

How can a man prove he's not abusive? Well, by not being a dick. If his XP doesn't want to speak to him or see him he shouldn't make any attempt to contact her. He shouldn't insist that contact takes place in her home against her wishes. He should be prepared to make reasonable arrangements to see and care for the DC ie live somewhere they can visit or, if that's not practical, be able to take them to the park/softplay/cinema/another friend or family member's house. He shouldn't send abusive texts or emails, or make false allegations of neglect. He should make sure he's not drunk or high at contact times, and agree to alcohol/drug tests if they are asked for.

And obviously, any further incidents of abuse or unreasonable behaviour should lead to contact being stopped with no penalties against the PWC.

SolidGoldBrass, I'm not sure any of that would prove categorically that someone found to have been an abuser (man or woman) is no longer a risk. I'm not trying to be obstructive by the way, I'm genuinely interested in others ideas on this subject. Personally I don't think all of those things alone would reassure me. I would want to see some counselling at the very least and acknowledgment and understanding if the behaviour.

"Around a quarter of British children ? 3 million in all ? are growing up in single parent households. In 90% of these households, it was the father who left, or who was never present in the first place"

From "Father Figures" by Policy Exchange

Idealised view of womanhood? Fact is Spero - women generally do not up and leave their children. Men do. Women simply can't do it as easily.

And in the same way, women generally don't want to cut contact with the child's father unless he's a complete idiot - because they won't and can't harm their children and they know that this generally causes the child distress.

But ss dont work on prof they work on probability of harm

They take in to account background x actions in the past x actions currently

So why should be be any diffrent with children with in the family court

If a ex is still sending abusive texts (which can be easily proved)
If they are not sticking to the alloted times for drop off and pick ups
If the chikdren are showing times off stress which can be backed up by the school and gp/health visitor
If they have other children the dont see (alarm bells should ring loud and clear)

But crapcass remain def to these indicators because there not instrested in protecting children there role is to promote contact

I have see cases perosnlly were a child was removed because it was felt the harm to the child was imminent and significant

Only for that same parent to be awared 6 months later unsupervised contact

Just shows how bonkers ss are and that there only conern is contact

Polly it is worth keeping in mind that while it is virtually impossible to prove EA, the family court doesn't require the same standard of proof as a criminal court. Family courts work on the Balance of Probability, or what is more likely to be true. That is determined not just on the claims and allegations of either party, but also on patterns of behaviour.

This means that if a PWC claims that the NRP had disappeared and showed no interest in the children so should have minimal supervised contact, yet the NRP can show solicitors letters they have sent requesting a contact schedule be drawn up, the PWC would be given short shrift. Similarly there are patterns to EA that the courts are very familiar with and can spot a mile off.

A case in point for the patterns is my own. I am currently going through a contact case with my EA ex. A friend of mine was mentioning it to her mother, who I have never met, as an example of how the court system can be misused. My friend told her mother that I had split from ex several years ago and he had shown very little interest in seeing the children, then a few months back he suddenly popped up with a court summons. The first thing my friends mother said to her was "let me guess, she has recently started dating again or moved in with someone?" which I had. It is such a common trigger for EA absent parents that it is almost cliched.

The courts do know this and do recognise abuse where it is happening, if there is the time, money and will to go to a finding of facts hearing. The key problem lies in the fact that there is very little they can do about it as the political will isn't there to have non physical abuse taken as seriously as physical abuse so it has to be incredibly severe for it to prevent contact as the ongoing effects of EA are mostly overlooked, by society and as a result by law makers.

Sorry polly, I still think you are being very naive. More men may up and leave but many, many women abuse and neglect their children. 'Motherhood' isn't some mystical mantle that automatically embues you with sense and caring. The fact that you thing everyone is surrounded by a pool of loving helpful adults who could act as 'guardians' shows that you have a very unrealistic view of the bleakness of many adult lives.

To polarise this debate as men vs women, women always the victims and men always the aggressors is just wrong - worse than wrong, actively unhelpful. People abuse and let down their children in a myriad of horrible ways. We need to try to help them to stop this, not waste time on tired old tropes and bluster.

We had one child we were fostering get diganosed with post traumatic stress from contact and yet ss still backed conatct
i know of other child who are driven at the age of 5 by cab 3 hours after school and 3 hours back to there foster carers getting home a 9/10pm to fullfill 1 hours contact

And even with chikdren who are not in care crapcass will direct with child to travel to the parent makeing the chikd endure hours of travell every weekend instead of complelling the NRP to travell to the child how is that balnced

In there guidelines they have a "duty" to promote contact ss were havily criticised by Martian Neary for the way ss persue contact regudless weather its in the child instest or not

HopingItllBeOK *sorry this is just not true my ex has come out of the wood work after 10 years never paid a penny never borthered with my ds at all

I was expressly told by my solicitor that the only thing short of my ex dropping the case that will stop contact be award will be my ds telling crapcass he dosent want to see him*

i have been told in cases were dads pop out of the blue after years a brief inroduction period is favoured then contact

I don't know what is going on in your cases domjolly but there is no way I could ever get a social worker to agree to let a child travel 3 hours for contact! When I act for parents, even mothers of new borns it is a massive fight to get contact even a couple of times a week for a few hours. I am constantly being told, it is too far, child needs to settle. My parents are expected to travel to contact centres on their own steam, but SS may provide bus ticket.

I don't know where you are based butit sounds like you need to get your MP to investigate as everything you describe is utterly alien to me and my practise.

Who told you brief introduction period then contact?? Absolute rubbish. There would be life story work, indirect contact and a gradual build up to introductions.

There not intrested in "historic" behaviour i have been told by my laywer

Which is funny as how how do you blance the probability of truth is you do look at who as lied in the past

The best predictor of presant behaviour is past behaviour it all other setting ss use this

Then your lawyer is a prat. Sack him or her ad get someone who knows what they are doing. Previous behaviour is massively relevant. CAFCASS do initial enhanced CRB checks - they are very interested in previous behaviour.