to feel so disheartened at the family court system

[currantbunsforeyes]

Ex has been harassing me using the courts for years. He's had prohibited steps order placed on me by making up lies that I'm a flight risk, appealed decisions, etc.... This has gone on for years until I was awarded sole res due to his ongoing harassment.

Despite this he's still taking me to court for shared res. There was a stay (prevention order) to stop him for doing this for two years but now they are up I'm back in court. The judge has asked for new hearing and agreed to ex's request to leave out old judgements from bundle! WTF!!! The old judgements shows how his harassment and constant harassing using courts led to me ending up with sole res.

I feel like there is no point, no consistency. I've been doing this now for eight years. PS I'm generous with contact. Dcs have alternate weekends and mid week overnight stays with him.

Are the family law court system that messed up?

[Aeroflotgirl]

Unfortunately these violent men go to the courts for contact, not necessarily because they want a relationship with the child, but it seems that they view contact as a way of controlling the partner who has left them, and continuing their abuse through the child.

[LotusLight]

The courts have to be a straight jacket with some rules. That is why if you can possibly avoid them and all state interference in your life so much the better. You have to dance to their tune, pretend the hate social worker or not very clever other state official which whom you have to deal is God's gift to the planet and that their ideas are wonderful otherwise you'll be unfair punished because you dare to say the social worker is wrong or you aren't prepared to have therapy because you don't believe in it or whatever.

It is hard to improve the system but we need this system and some checks and balances - if we ensured children could speak in court in every court hearing, if on the whole journalists were allowed in, if both parents could have their say and submit their own reports (and in my view if we only ever allowed long term fostering and no adoption) I think it would be better but no doubt others will have totally different views to mine.

Perhaps the best thing my children's father ever did to us all was choose basically no contact after divorce so we had none of this. It came from the same reason as many of the male husbands on this thread had - mine wanted to cause as many problems as possible (which for a full time working mother of five withdrawing his help, childcare, involvement was the most radical thing he could do give I paid him on the divorce and he has no obligations to pay anything so he could not use money). I am lucky that he chose this route although it is he who is the prime loser from his stance.

[Aeroflotgirl]

I know baby it seems as though some judges do not have a clue about DV and how how abuse happens, how the victim is controlled by the abuser. They are having to pass judgements, in cases where there is DV, which they know very little about, as in baby case. Oh gosh baby how awful, I am so glad that you are both free of him.

[Spero]

Thanks, that is clearer. But I am not sure it's a helpful comparison.

Me being worried that a parent isn't acting 'normally' isn't me imposing my prejudices and dislike of people who don't fit the 'norm' - as Jamelia would seem to be doing.

It's because I have clear and compelling evidence in the form of their child's significant emotional distress, that their behaviour is harmful and destructive and needs to stop.

Because my advice and court orders rarely seem to impact on these people, I wonder whether there is anything that will - therapy seems the only other option.

This isn't about criticism of people for being vulnerable. It's about trying to keep children safe from exposure to behaviour which on any standard of judgment, will harm them.

[JoanHickson]

Ok, I struggle explaining myself, sorry for the confusion.

The Jamelia reference was to do with her own issues regarding people outside the "normal" size range. Jamelia from my understanding wold prefer a world where those not "normal" sized do not interact with her and are segregated into "specialist " shops. Like the legal profession asking those outside their idea of "normal" behaviour get "therapy". We had been speaking about a Mum to teens and advising them to get "therapy" because the Dad started legal proceedings because his Wife hurt his child.

You explained it is frustration that brings the legal profession to advise therapy.

[Spero]

I don't understand your comment?

I am talking about people who seem on the surface 'normal', sane, intelligent, but who behave in ways towards their partners and children that are deeply hurtful and which will leave emotional scars for very many years.

I don't understand why people behave like that - why they like to abuse/control. I can only hope that therapy might help, but of course they need the insight to recognise this.

I don't understand your reference to people with LD or brain damage. Of course, if someone has an inherent disbability or has become disabled through an accident the law doesn't expect them to act as an NT person would and the courts have systems in place, such as intermediaries and litigation friends.

[JoanHickson]

Spero, it is no different to Jamelia and her comments. check out the thread in chat.

It is frustration at the legal system, a learning disability , mental health issue, brain damage or personality type. Not really on is it to take it out on the vulnerable? No different to disability hate crimes. Taking frustration out on the vulnerable by the legal system and it's socially acceptable.

Maybe it's a topic that needs adressing at your meeting?

[Babynamechange]

Thanks aero. Yes trying to reason with someone who is threatening to put your head through the window because you went to a baby group and who actually is looking for any reason to be angry

[Babynamechange]

Also a lot of abusive type people have some level of narcissistic personality which is notoriously difficult to change :(

[HeadDoctor]

As a trainee psychotherapist my biggest issue with it is that you can't make someone engage if they aren't ready to. I think therapy would be an answer to a lot of these problems but not until the person is ready.

[Spero]

The reference to need for therapeutic intervention is I think a reflection of the desperation of many family lawyers - we simply don't know what to do to try to make unreasonable people behave reasonably. They don't seem to care about court orders, they certainly don't care about the impact their behaviour is having on the children...

So we pull out our hair and wonder if they could just knuckle down to some therapy they might get to understand how destructive their behaviour is.

Maybe that's a pipe dream. I am not a therapist, so I don't know. But the law certainly can't help these people, in fact it often makes them worse because now they are fighting a 'battle' and they get even more excited.

[Aeroflotgirl]

That is awful baby, how can you reason with a man who is way bigger than you, who is totally dsyfunctional beyond being reasoned to. Its this kind of attitude we do not need in court, it does show courts in a bad light.

[JoanHickson]

I just want to touch on the therapy issue.

If you do engage and learn dysfunctional behaviour/Red flags it is a real eye opener to professionals who have issues.

I think the therapy advise is often a put down not genuine welfare concern.

[Spero]

I think its similar to the mind set that depressed people could just 'snap out of it' if they wanted to. People who aren't depressed or who aren't dealing with adolescents who are refusing to comply, often find it difficult to understand just how hard it can be and how useless most strategies are.

[Babynamechange]

Sorry but that's an appalling attitude for a judge to have.

In my judgment the judge wrote that as I had a clear intellectual advantage I could have reasoned my way out of the violent situations if I had chosen to.... The implication being that it was my fault :(

[Aeroflotgirl]

Lotus I wish others life was as simple and as uncomplicated as yours. Unfortunately abusers do turn to the courts for contact as a way to control and abuse the woman further.

[LotusLight]

The courts mean well in these cases but the more people can keep their family and it's issues away from the state always including social workers lawyers and police the better. I am not saying they should never turn to law but I am so glad we never had a single court hearing over anything in our divorce.

[Babynamechange]

Good grief! :(

[Spero]

is that the parent, by argument, persuasion, cajolement, blandishments, inducements, sanctions (for example, 'grounding' or the confiscation of mobile phones, computers or other electronic equipment) or threats falling short of brute force, or by a combination of them, does their level best to ensure compliance. That is what one would expect of a parent whose rebellious teenage child is foolishly refusing to do GCSEs or A-Levels or 'dropping out' into a life of drug-fuelled crime

Yes, this bit is eyebrow raising. I wonder what world some judges live in. Whenever I have seen parents try these tactics with the particularly rebellious teens it usually goes spectacularly, horribly wrong.

If a child doesn't want to do their exams or see their father, the problem usually goes a wee bit deeper than you can resolve by taking their phone off them - which is going to prompt them to even deeper despair.

these aren't cases about teenage strops but really serious psychological dysfunction. I think most of them require professional help and you can't blame a parent for failing to ensure compliance - unless of course that parent is part of the problem and the reason for the lack of compliance! In which case, 'grounding' and taking phones away is even less likely to have any positive impact.

[LotusLight]

Spero, I just read that - typical sad case which illustrates how hard it is for courts to do the right thing.

Father's new girl friend or step mother physically assaults 9 year old and hurts/mark her. Daughters don't want to see father nor his lover. Not surprising.
Girls are now 16 and 14 and know their own mind. I doubt the mother has done much to put them off their father -he probably did all that for himself but courts never seem to believe that.

I fundamentally disagree with this though:

"I appreciate that parenting headstrong or strong-willed teenagers can be particularly taxing, sometimes very tough and exceptionally demanding. And in relation to the parenting of teenagers no judge can safely overlook the teaching of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority and anor [1986] AC 112, in particular the speeches of Lord Fraser of Tullybelton and Lord Scarman. But parental responsibility does not shrivel away, merely because the child is 14 or even 16, nor does the parental obligation to take all reasonable steps to ensure that a child of that age does what it ought to be doing, and does not do what it ought not to be doing. I accept (see Cambra v Jones [2014] EWHC 2264 (Fam), paras 20, 25) that a parent should not resort to brute force in exercising parental responsibility in relation to a fractious teenager. But what one can reasonably demand – not merely as a matter of law but also and much more fundamentally as a matter of natural parental obligation – is that the parent, by argument, persuasion, cajolement, blandishments, inducements, sanctions (for example, 'grounding' or the confiscation of mobile phones, computers or other electronic equipment) or threats falling short of brute force, or by a combination of them, does their level best to ensure compliance. That is what one would expect of a parent whose rebellious teenage child is foolishly refusing to do GCSEs or A-Levels or 'dropping out' into a life of drug-fuelled crime. Why should we expect any less of a parent whose rebellious teenage child is refusing to see her father? "


I don't do any of those things ever that that judge suggests - not all parents are the same. I have never grounded or punished a child and as my children are so well brought up by my better approach by the time they are teenagers they know what is right and do the right thing.

(Nor though would I ever deny them any contact with their father - who is welcome to them half the time if he wants but chooses zero nights a year, more fool him).

I also disagree with the court think therapy is always right. if the mother and girls don't want it that's fine. Why should we all kow tow to the views of social workers, lawyers, courts who might happen to think therapy is a great thing for everyone to take part in?

The bottom line here is with older children like this in practice they make up their own minds so either men should not divorce until children are 18 or else make sure the children like them enough to want to be with them.

[Spero]

O yes, the dad behaved like a complete arse - allowed his wife to tussle with the 9 year old, briusing and frightening her - then refused to apologise and admit he had let them down! (Wonder what happened with the wife?)

But the mother then encouraged the children to make allegations of sexual abuse against him, which the court said were made up.

The language this judge uses against the parents is quite extra-ordinary as I agree with the CA, this is not a judge who goes in for 'extravagant' language!

But its a horrible example of how the court threw everything it had to try and help the situation but in the end it failed because the only people who could have made it better were the parents and they obviously decided to hate each other more than they gave a damn about their children.

[MyArksNotReady]

Thanks for the link to the Judgement. I did see a DM article on this case. The Dad allowed the Step mum physically assault the children apparently.

I don't hold much opinion of CAFCASS officers opinions after dealing with the fools myself. They totally twisted events to look dysfunctional when years later it has been medically proven that CAFCASS and their opinion had no relation to proven fact in our case.

[Spero]

Here is a link to the full case. It is worth a read if you think that the problems in the system are down to the judges alone...

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/389.html

[Spero]

The Court of Appeal handed down judgment in a contact dispute case yesterday which is well worth a read for anyone interested in how the family courts can struggle with the problems of dysfunctional adults. I will see if I can find the link, but the President of the Family Division made this comment:


68. There are occasions, though I hope that the introduction in 2014 of the Child Arrangements Programme will make this increasingly a thing of the past, when a parent can truly say that they have been failed by the family justice system. Shaming examples include Re D (Intractable Contact Dispute: Publicity) [2004] EWHC 727 (Fam), [2004] 1 FLR 1226, and Re A (Intractable Contact Dispute: Human Rights Violations)[2013] EWCA Civ 1104, [2014] 1 FLR 1185. This is not such a case. With all respect to those who might seek to contend otherwise, the stark truth is that responsibility for the deeply saddening and deeply worrying situation in which J and K now find themselves is shared by their parents and by no-one else.
69. My Lady has already set out the words which His Honour Judge Wildblood QC used in his judgment, but they bear repetition:
"The guardian in this case describes the conduct of both parents towards their children in relation to the issues before me as 'inexcusable'. In my opinion that adjective is at least apposite and is, if anything, unduly mild.
This case represents one of the most abject failures of parental responsibility by two otherwise intelligent parents that I can remember in 34 years as a family lawyer. In my opinion the mess that these parents have made of their shared responsibility for their children is a disgrace."
That such language can be used, and in my judgment justifiably used, by a judge of this experience and, if I may say so, a judge not known for extravagance of language, is striking. Both parents need to ponder long and hard.
70. They also need to consider very carefully – both of them – the judge's next words:
"I predict that it will only be in later life that the manifestations of what these parents have done to their children will become apparent as the children struggle to function as adults following the skewed childhood that their parents have both chosen to give them."

[LotusLight]

(By the way Radio 4 Moneybox live (on iplayer) is about divorce today - although it's the financial side; still quite interesting).