to wonder if contact is always in the best interests of the child

[paddleduck]

Before I start I should say, I have no first hand experience, obviously do not know these people personally and accept my opinion may be unreasonable given the above.

Yesterday I took my dc to a soft play with some friends. While there a set of grandparents came in, closely followed by a couple and another boy of school age. The grandad was carrying a little girl of about 3 or 4 who was hysterical. She looked petrified and was clinging to her grandpa with white hands. She couldn't breathe for her sobs and she was drenched in her own tears. She just kept screaming 'I want to go home' 'no no no' and whenever the man from the couple approaches her, she begins screaming 'no please.. go away.. Don't want you!'

I found it so difficult to listen to her sobs, it really made my heart ache for her. Her grandparents kept cuddling her and talking softly, periodically trying to put her down and encourage her to engage with this couple. The woman part of said couple just kept standing around with her hands in her pockets rolling her eyes and huffing, man kept doing silly faces etc trying to engage little girl.

Any who, my friend visits this softplay weekly and said she'd explain when we left.

Friend explains that it is 'contact' .. The man is her dad. Woman is new wife and school child is new wife's son from previous relationship. Older couple are paternal grandparents. Dad was violent and hurt the little girls mum, so they have split and grandparents meet with the dad for supervised contact weekly. She says this softplay scenario happens every week for around 8 months now, with the little girl being distraught at every visit. - she knows this because the mother of the little girl is her aunties life long friend.

I found the whole thing so upsetting to watch and haven't stopped thinking of that little girl. The more I consider the situation the more I feel that after so long of these awful contact sessions, it would be in the child's best interests for the dad to leave her alone. To remain contactable for when she is older, if she wants to.. but that if a child finds being in your presence that distressing then that's not good to keep putting g her through that. I understand how difficult that would be as a parent. . But I almost felt it was selfish of him to keep pushing her like that. Long term she will anticipate the meetings with anxiety and they may never make progress like this? Of course he could have just not been a violent partner in the first place and my disgust over knowing what he's done makes me want to say he doesn't deserve access.. but if he's getting it someone obviously deems him not a risk to the little girl right? And presumably he has PR

Anyway. . Am I bu to think he should walk away?

Courts aren't neutral.

The vast majority of judges are men.

It is a patriarchal system set up by men. They consider men's rights first.

Parliament could legislate to change how courts work or what rules they have to follow but hey ho parliament is mostly men too.

So women and children will continue to be abused.

That's true, but to be fair to the courts and the judges they have to act within the law. They cannot just agree with the mother even if the judge 'knows' that the mother is right. Just like police can't arrest people just because they 'know' those people have committed a crime. They have to follow stupid rules.

The child described by the OP clearly is suffering though. They were extremely distressed. Being forced repeatedly into such a distressing situation is not good psychologically or emotionally. Heaven knows what the child may have witnessed in the past.

It bewilders me that the courts force vulnerable children into the presence of violent thugs. We adults are supposed to protect children, not to harm them. What lessons are we teaching them? That it's OK to intimidate, to thump, to bully, to threaten? That the thug is more powerful than the victim? That the authorities will threaten the weak and powerless and put them in danger?

Courts will generally attempt to protect adults who suffer from violence. They will issue orders to keep violent people away from their targets. Yet if the victim is a child, somehow the reverse applies.

I think this kind of wrong-headed 'oh, it doesn't matter, he only hit her mother' attitude is storing up deep emotional and psychological problems for the poor kids in the future.

The confusion comes from 'children need a father'. People put children in situations they would advise their own friends to run away from, and which they would run away from themselves, on the basis that the children need a father. The abuse/violence becomes completely irrelevant, they are just happy that there is 'contact' with the 'father'.

Yes, Kawliga, no matter how much vulnerable children suffer. It's appalling. Such a ridiculous line of thinking. Children need decent fathers. Or even OK fathers. Not violent thugs.

Your poor DD, kipling. My son's father is pretty much the same and ds chooses not to see him, which I support (he knows that he can if he wants to, but chooses not to). Is there a court order in place?

Inconsistent absent parents really, really damage a child's self esteem. Some absent parents are great, and will do everything they can to have regular contact with their children. But some will pick up their child and put them down like a toy, without a thought about that child and how disruptive they are being. My ex used to call and demand to see ds with no notice. He didn't see or contact ds for 18 months but called the night before and yelled at me down the phone because we had already made plans (our lives didn't stop because he left), train tickets paid for etc. Ds ended up missing a day of school just so that his father could see him. Never again.

Others want to have very young dc (babies) overnight. Only the mother (or parent of a baby, usually the mother*) can know what it costs to send a young child overnight with a stranger that they hardly know. Even now, at age nearly 7, my dd still finds it hard to have a night without me. She gets weepy at bedtime if she goes to a sleepover, and that's with friends that she knows very well and sees every day, not a stranger who just turned up.

*had to add that before somebody pipes up with the 'some women are evil' mantra.

Ds's father wanted ds to fly over and spend a week with him since ds was 6, kawliga. He doesn't live in the UK and contact between him and has been practically non existent since ds was 3. It would be like me sending ds to spend a week with the bloke at the supermarket check out. I refuse to do it until he steps up contact and it's consistent but he's never done this. His father's a drunk with a short temper. He's yelled and swore in ds's face, he's ripped clothes which ds loved off ds because ds has been sick and they have had to be thrown away, he used to get into fights with strangers, wake us up at 3am from when ds was a week old because he was pissed and wanted somewhere to sleep, but everyone else is in the wrong, mainly me, never him. If things don't go his way he shouts at you until you cave in. We can't say anything about how we're feeling or criticise him in any way or he won't speak to us for months or more (he told ds not to contact him again until ds apologised after ds corrected his grammar in an email). His new way to control me is by not responding to emails or texts. I had to take him to court as he stopped paying maintenance as he felt as though we were not grateful. The court almost doubled his payments as he'd always refused to increase them and had got a better job. He owes arrears and is stonewalling me. I'm waiting for the court to sort them out. It's my fault though, I'm the one stopping him seeing ds I just don't believe it's in ds's best interests to spend time with him. I used to think it was, that ds had a right to get to know him, but not any more. His father's a bully, and he's better off keeping away.

I wholeheartedly agree OP.

I totally agree kawliga and weatherall. A chikd should never have contact with a violent and abusive man. Quite often the child has witnessed this violence, whose to tell when the father will turn their violence or abuse on the child. Many times courts are ordering unsupervised contact with violent and abusive fathers, as they will not be abusive tho wards their own child! Well hello It happens. Yes there is a lot of mysogeny amongst judges, they can never be totally nutural, there is always personal opinion that can cloud their judgement.

Sometimes putting vulnerable children at risk for the sake of maintaining contact with their father.

It would be like me sending ds to spend a week with the bloke at the supermarket check out.

I totally agree, LadySybil. Most rational men would not want to take a strange child overnight let alone for a week, I think it is the fight with the mother that gets in the way and suspends rational thought. They must have contact because otherwise they feel like they've let the mother 'win'. Nothing to do with the child's welfare.

caveat: needless to say this doesn't apply to all fathers, just the ones who are strangers to the child.

Tge mums are blackmailed by the judges not to breach contact with the treat of reverse residency. So my friend has to send her dc every week to his abusive father, every week dc tells her how he's abused him, and tag the hates his father

The police in her area is so thin on the ground they cannot get special officers to interview him, SS are sweeping it under the carpet

So the cycle of abuse continues

They consider men's rights first

Rubbish. They consider what is in the child's best interests. Contact is always about the child having a relationship with the NRP. The NRP (male or female) does not have any right to contact. It is the child that has the rights.

The presumption, based on extensive research, is that in most cases contact with the non-resident parent is best for the child. The courts therefore order contact in the vast majority of cases unless there is clear evidence that it is not in the child's best interests.

Of course they will occasionally get it wrong. Judges are human and make mistakes. They are not helped by the number of resident parents who make false allegations of DV, child abuse, etc. in an attempt to prevent contact. Judges therefore have to disregard such allegations unless there is supporting evidence. Sadly that sometimes means a mother who is telling the truth is ignored due to lack of evidence, occasionally with tragic results.

The only obvious alternative approach available would be to believe all allegations made by resident parents regardless of any evidence. This would result in a significant number of children being deprived of the chance of having a meaningful relationship with the NRP for no good reason.

prh, courts cannot act without evidence, that's pretty obvious. Just like police have to let criminals go because they have no evidence that will stand up. Nobody thinks the rules should be scrapped. Just that if you are the mother you damn well do what you can to keep your dc safe and don't think the courts will do that for you.

I agree about the mothers who tell lies or stop contact just because the father is inconveniencing them. You see them on MN, saying they will stop contact because the father did not give them 3 days notice or arrived an hour late or has ruined the holiday plans or stupid stuff like that which has nothing to do with the welfare of the child.

I agree that not all judges are sexist. I had my final hearing last week, the 19th hearing in 2.5 years. After a long, long slog, the male judge gave an order for zero contact, removal of parental responsibility, a section 9.14 preventing my ex from making any further applications for contact without prior approval from the court, a residency order for me, prohibited steps order and non mol order.

I realise that mine was a very exceptional case (the judge said it was the worst domestic abuse he had encountered in 40 years. However it goes to show that the legal system can and will exercise extreme measures in the interests of the child.

If a child had witnessed its father abuse its mother then that child has been abused by him also, emotionally and mentally. The child's right not be terrified and relive abuse should come before the fathers 'right' to see it.

I hope beavie in my friends case that happens. Every week her ds behaviour is getting worse and more sexualised due to dad abuse. Ph I disagree, sometimes the judges insistence on a relationship with the father trumps the welfare of the child. There was an interesting article in Wimans Aid about the number of chikdren who die or who are abused during court ordered contact.

I generally do believe mostly contact with the father is important if there are no abuse issues. I do think though it is fair a mother has a 24 hour notice period for NRP cancelling contact, to save their child being let down time and time again, especially if the NRP has form of this, and uses contact as a means of control.

The thread with the dc and the show. Dad had the option of taking tge girl but did not want to. This young child had been practicing for weeks and was really ecstatic about it. It us emotionally abusive to take that away from her. Any decent father would be up there in the front roe watching his dc perform.

Is safe contact with an abusive parent always damaging for a child? Are there no long term benefits, despite the professional opinions?

Have legislation, the professionals and the legal system got it fundamentally wrong? Is supervised and indirect contact a form of state-endorsed child abuse?

What if the child isn't distressed by contact? What if they want a relationship with the violent parent? Should that be permitted even though it may be damaging?

Is a parent who commits other acts of violence (not DV related) equally dangerous to a child, and should contact, even safe contact, be prevented in those cases, to?

I admit, I've always accepted the "safe contact is best" position. But now I'm examining the alternative pov, which raises more questions than answers in my mind!

personal opinion that can cloud their judgement.

That is the same in every part if life though.

Personal experience etc shapes people. Who can honestly say that there are situations in which they are completely neutral.

Rightly or wrongly assumptions are made. I have had assumptions made about me on this thread by people who know nothing about me, my life or what I have been through.

The below is from the Women's Aid website

If you have left home because of your partner's violence, you will probably have taken the children with you, and will probably want to continue to care for them and make a home for them. When both your children and your ex-partner (the non-resident or 'absent' parent) wish to see each other, and this can be arranged safely and without major problems, this is likely to benefit everyone concerned. However, in many cases, your safety and that of your children may be a serious concern.

Many mothers have good reason to fear any ongoing contact between their children and their former partner, but they often find that family court professionals minimise or ignore these fears because they are convinced that ongoing contact with both parents is in the interest of the children in the long-term. Many mothers who have escaped from their abusive partners therefore find it extremely difficult to protect their children from ongoing abuse because they are required by the court to comply with an order for contact.

When a parent applies for contact with his (or her) children, under the Children Act 1989, this will almost always be granted. One fundamental principle of the legislation is that the child's welfare should be paramount - and in most cases, this is assumed to be upheld by maintaining his or her contact with both parents: in 2003, only 601 out of 67,184 contact applications (less than 1%) were refused. The courts fail, in many cases, to take domestic violence seriously, despite the introduction in April 2001 of Good Practice Guidelines recommending that the dangers are highlighted at an early stage in the proceedings, so that the safety of the child and the resident parent is secured before, during and after contact visits.

In three-quarters of cases when courts have ordered contact with an abusive parent the children suffered further abuse. Some children have even been ordered to have contact with a parent who has committed offences against children. In some cases, children have even been killed as a result of contact or residence arrangements. (See References and further reading.) There are also many cases in which an abusing parent has used a contact visit to trace the mother's whereabouts, or to assault or otherwise abuse her further.