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?

1. We need a lot more openness in the family courts so people can see justice being done.
2. Most parents and courts and lawyers know that the best contact works out with no contact at all agreed between parents and usually that works fine. In fact if you have to involve the courts in a sense everyone has lost.
3. However you do get these serial litigant types - usually men - who want 100% contact or none at all or who are a bit deranged and misusing the system. Sometimes judges publish a judgment in those cases explaining what these men have done.
4. Others have my issue - I have no legal right to force my chidlren's father to see his children so I get the children 365 nights a year despite working full time and paying for everything and he is allowed in law to choose never to have them even for one night a year.
5. If we could move to 50/50 unless the court says otherwise or the parents agree otherwise as a default it could be a lot fairer.
6. Sadly often just taking the law into own hands seems to work better for some parents such as going abroad or just not complying with orders (although sometimes parents are fined and I am not recommending that course)

I also attribute a fair bit of it to public opinion (obviously this is personal opinion) and the take over of social media. So many women come on site like this and hear or see the standard " equal parents so what if he's abusive" clap trap and actually believe it that they set precedents and don't help themselves by minimising issues and encouraging even forcing contact because they think they are doing the right thing by protecting the first half of the children's rights that by the time they get in a court room they are being asked and cannot explain why they busted a gut and did more than a reasonable person would to facilitate contact with an abuser and "she'd loads of strangers on the Internet told me it was my duty as a mother" does not cut it so of course it looks like they have been happy to do it and all of a sudden for what ever reason are not anymore.

It plays right into the hands of an abuser whose playing the oh so fashionable parental alienation card.

5. If we could move to 50/50 unless the court says otherwise or the parents agree otherwise as a default it could be a lot fairer

No it would be fairer to you.it would not be fairer to the hundreds and thousands of women and children who are either survivors of or victims of abuse

The 50/50 would be unless the court said otherwise so in the very few cases of abuse then the court would decide otherwise.

"2. Most parents and courts and lawyers know that the best contact works out with no contact at all agreed between parents and usually that works fine"
Must have been late when I wrote that. I meant:

"2. Most parents and courts and lawyers know that the best contact works out with no court involvement at all, with everything agreed between parents and usually that works fine."

I agree that in cases where mother or father is very difficult or violent or a serial litigant then you may well need courts involved although even there it is hard as sometimes the ex spouse just wants lots of trouble and contact. Same with abusive on line postings. Sometimes sadly the best way is to ignore them as they woudl like nothing more than you sue them for libel so they gain an extra 12 months of legal contact with you and all the attention of a court case. It's very frustrating for people that sometimes the best advice is give in (because that person probably wont' bother to see the child anyway - they just want to the supposed victory of giving in to them).

How incredibly blinkered.
Go and learn something about levels of domestic abuse and how the removal of legal aid is working out for abuse victims who for what ever reason did not involve the police.

Or just read this entire thread and pay attention to the personal posts from parents of children who the system can not protect even with proven abuse cases

I don't think any problems are caused by children "not having a genetic sense of who they are" because they're not in contact with the father.

So many men impregnate women abroad then fuck off back to their own countries to the extent that I think men would agree that father involvement hardly matters, in a biological sense. Prostitution is also a booming industry, even in the UK, proving that men don't think knowing who the father is is important. There is no such thing as 100% effective contraception, yet men fuck prostitutes all the time, and are not interested at all in any potential conception.

However, major problems are caused when children are forced to spend time with someone who is hostile to their mother. The very act of hostility towards the mother is abusive to the children by default because it heaps stress on the mother.

I don't think any problems are caused by children "not having a genetic sense of who they are" because they're not in contact with the father

you may not think that but many chid psychologists would disagree with you and would rely on research that shows there can be very harmful consequences for children who do not have information about their origins and identity. I have also met many adults who speak of their sadness of never knowing their father, looking in the mirror and not being sure who is looking at them.

the Judges have to accept this expert evidence and tailor their judgments accordingly.

Most parents and courts and lawyers know that the best contact works out with no court involvement at all, with everything agreed between parents and usually that works fine

I wonder whether it is this simplistic jingle that is responsible for what Sock is seeing in increasing crazy judgments. Yes OF COURSE if you can sort your lives out without courts and lawyers you are likely to be much, much better off. If you need to go to court you will probably end up with a 'solution' imposed upon you that don't much care for, after spending a lot of money and enduring many months of emotional bombardment.

But we are NOT on this thread talking about those kind of cases. We are talking about cases where one or both of the parents have some deep rooted psychological issues which cause them to behave in abusive and dangerous ways to the other parent and possibly to the children.

The point I keep on making is that at the moment the only arena we have to try to resolve these disputes is the courts and they are not the best places, for all the obvious reasons.

But I do struggle to think of how else we do it. We can't force people into mediation - the gov seems to think it can just pull the plug on legal help for the vulnerable because we will all trot off to 'have a nice chat' with a mediator. The gov are massive fools and will find out pretty soon the consequences of this blinkered 'thinking' - which is motivated only by a desire to save money in the short term. It will of course in the longer term have the consequences of massively increasing the burden on the police and mental health crisis teams.

It is certanily not issue. Most cultures have family members trying to resolve things and then local religious or other leaders and in our country courts too. I am not against more mediation at all but for some it will not work or the other partner will not submit themselves to it.

The vast majority of couples divorcing on mumsnet don't need a court order about children as they agree between themselves. I am not however saying a court order is never required although we need to ensure if one is made it is actually stuck to and there are very harsh penalties if people ignore it or disappear with a child abroad.

Sometimes like 3 strikes and you are out might work - if the mother does not make child available within the time stated or 15 minutes on 3 occasions child goes to live with father for 2 months or if father misses contact or is late by 15 mins 3 times he loses any contact for next 3 months might work and if people whinge that the children suffer they should have thought of that before disobeying the order.

What you have just suggested is that the court uses children to punish parents, when the entire purpose of the courts is to PREVENT children being used by one parent against the other.
Children are not pawn's, they are not weapons, they are not the property of the parents to be divided up equally like a house or a CD collection.
Would you want to live in 2 homes, alternating each week, would you want to be passed around to relatives and child care while one parents at work not being allowed to see the other parent because it's "not their week"
It is proven that children need stanility, it is proven that passing children around causes attachment disorders. It is proven that abuse causes a whole bunch of emotional problems but let's ignore all that.

My daughter has a father, the only man she has ever lived with, the only man that has ever provided for her, the only man that has ever made sacrifices for her. He is her father but no, he didn't contribute a sperm to her creation.

The man that did do that oh so entitling deed, wanted her aborted, tried to cause her miscarriage, ended our 5 year relationship because he didn't want to pay and said he wanted me but didnt want IT and if I was going to keep IT then I would have to commit benefit fraud, he said that we will "live together just not on paper" I of course said no but boy are me and my daughter paying the price. You NEVER get away with saying no to a narcissist.

Ask yourself honesty which of these two men are more likely to have a positive influence over my DD? My husband who has been there so long my DD doesn't remember a time when he wasn't around is never going to have a good relationship with DD, because the sperm guy won't allow it whenever she comes home from his all we here for days is "daddy said your not my dad, daddy said I don't have to do what you say, daddy said you'll leave just like you left your last wife and kids, daddy said I can't trust you because you could be like Ian Huntley (and told her ALL the details of the soham murders at 6 years old)

All cases that end up in court are doomed, court orders do not change people. whoever is in the wrong will not magically become a good person just because of a piece of paper, they may abide by it and some don't even do that but the child will still be living in a negative hostile tug of war that court orders don't end.

HardtoDance - the variability of circumstances of family life are infinite. I am not saying, have never said that EVERY child needs to know their genetic parents. For some children the harm this would cause would far outweigh the benefits.

But you cannot use your case to argue that Judges should therefore not consider this issue in the cases before them. Because for SOME children the harm done by denying them any relationship with their genetic parent will be significant.

A Judge has to try and work out which case he/she is dealing with, not simply rule out considering it from the off.

Sometimes like 3 strikes and you are out might work - if the mother does not make child available within the time stated or 15 minutes on 3 occasions child goes to live with father for 2 months or if father misses contact or is late by 15 mins 3 times he loses any contact for next 3 months might work and if people whinge that the children suffer they should have thought of that before disobeying the order

I think this just shows you don't understand the nature of the problem we are dealing with here. Probably about 10% of contact cases fall into the category of 'intractable'. This is because they involve people who will not give a damn about court orders.

Further I completely agree that it is ludicrous to suggest using children as pawns in this way. Go and live with dad for 2 months? So dad's in Aberdeen, mother's in Truro. Where are the children going to go to school? What about their friends, their pets?

You are quite happy for the children to suffer if it punishes the parents. That might be your mindset but it will never, ever be what motivates judicial decisions. It can't be, unless you want to dismantle the Children Act 1989 which sets out that the child's welfare is the paramount consideration of the court. Judges have to apply the statute.

I agree Spero, but in my experience "not knowing bio dad causes harm" seems to be the only consideration and a bad father is better than no father seems to be the attitude.

lotus

You do understand you are on a thread talking about contact where abuse is an issue, don't you?

As you appear to be advocating sending children to live with abusers when the none abusive parent tries to protect them abuse. Unless of course I've misunderstood your stance,I would like to think I have because I tend to think that people who think child abuse is acceptable often happen to be a bit distasteful

I thino my ex got a kick at pulling the wool over the a judge as a byproduct of using court to further abuse.

Oh well it taught me a lesson and he and The authoritis in this country taught us they will no protect us from DV nor professionalls who mess up.

I have made it clear I was not talking about abuse cases just instead the vast majority of cases where we need the wisdom of Solomon to try to decide when each child sees which parent.

If there is real violent abuse abuse and any contact would cause the child to be abused I would ignore the law and move to a country with no extradition as the moral duty is to protect the child actually or wait to be jailed before giving any contact.

Couldn't agree more Ark, as for family courts being private to protect children's identities, what a joke, children's names can easily be changed/covered. They are private to protect the legalised child abuse that's going on day after day, people turn a blind eye to it because it's to horrible to let it in.
Like that poor little boy that starved to death despite being in full time school, how did a whole school watch a him starve over a long period of time and not do anything.

But lotus you are suggesting that children be used as court sanctions for ignoring orders! I assure you my daughter is being abused and no way in hell should she be anywhere near him, but if I ignore the order she will be sent to live with him. That scares me enough to "do as I'm told"

They have a job to do. They work from paper evidence. They have to sleep at night so I think they get hardened and find excuses to stop guilt. They know the laws, guidance and those interpreting it can at times not be fit for purpose. They want to go home and cook, sort the children when they go home rather than make changes.

My listed points were not for abuse cases so happy not to talk about the vast majority of contact cases where there is no dispute and parents agree contact times. In those none abuse cases where one parents often does not make children available or does not turn up - messing people around - there needs to be some sanction. Often in those cases the children spend a few nights a week with their father and that becoming a few more because of the mother's breach or vice versa could be a massive lovely bonus for the non abused child and make sure people actually follow contact orders to the letter.

In abuse cases I've said what the moral route might be to protect your child whatever the consequences for you. Most of us would rather die than have our children hurt.

What about a nrp who doesn't show up and lies stating the pwc is not turning up? People do this as a form of dv.

I 100% agree that legal aid is one of the major issues here. Of course it is always going to be difficult to make your case fully to a judge when you are up against the person who has abused you and/or your children for years and who may be able to afford their own lawyer. You desperately need someone there who knows the system who is on your side, AND who knows what needs to be produced by way of evidence and how to get it. For that idiot Grayling to suggest that removing legal aid makes no difference is utterly dishonest.

As Spero says, use your vote wisely.

I would rather die than know my DD is living every single day with abuse, rather than just the 48hrs of abuse I'm forced to send her for!

HardtoDance, your situation is so so , there are others like you out there, in the same situation. I cannot imagine what you and others like you must be going through, watching your child get hurt and abused time and time again, and getting worse and worse before your eyes. These are the children who will suffer, their outcomes will not be as good, its putting them at a life disadvantage.

Can I be really really stupid, what are the parties one should be considering when voting. I need some time to read the manifestos, I am so strapped having to look after my dd who is Autistic.

Myarks, I am sure that explains the attitudes of some professionals, that they are just jaded and want to go home.

But not all of us. I am organising a conference on 1st June about why the child protection system is working well. This is going to cover a lot of the same issues that are discussed here, namely how should the State interfere in family life when there are allegations of abuse.

I am pleased to say I have had a lot of interest from professionals - I have 120 places, we are nearly full and 30% are parents, 70% professionals. I thought it would be the other way round, so I am really pleased.

We do know and understand that things are not going great. but yes, you do have to switch off to some extent or you will have a nervous breakdown or kill yourself. I am lucky in that I don't have to deal with the most serious cases of child abuse, where lawyers have to sit and watch hours of videos of children being abused, with no counselling, no help, no nothing. unsurprisingly they burn out pretty quickly.

I genuinely think that most people in this field are interested and committed. They do the work because they think its important, not just to get through to 5pm and go home. But if some family lawyers are jaded and fed up, I am certainly not going to point the finger and criticise their moral worth. Come and work in their shoes for a few weeks and you will see what I mean.

Myarks - re voting, I am afraid I don't trust any of the major parties. But I would definitely NOT vote Conservative, as this is the party who brought in the major changes depriving people of legal aid, so they are not going to reverse those changes any time soon.