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?

What a balanced view you have there Sakura

My DH is one of those non-abusive, helpful fathers. His exW told him that he would end up broke before she would allow contact with the children. No safeguarding issues. No DV. Repeated false allegations against DH for which she never was even asked for evidence or anything. In fact she was found to be emotionally abusing the children and yet nothing was done about it. She was told she needed to change, she hasn't and there's no consequence for her. I think it's very unfair to say men this and men that. They are not all the same.

As it happens I work with children who have had no contact with their abusive parent. The psychological effects of that, even when it was the right decision, are huge. The children I work with are often devastated. It's not a decision to be taken lightly.

Why the fuck is Spero on a mother's website arguing abstract concepts about biological imperatives?

Because this is a thread about the family court system. And I am explaining the law which operates in the family court system.

and, like it or not, the law is extremely clear. Both on a domestic and international level. A child has a right to a relationship with both parents - if safe as sock rightly reminds us.

And why? Because there is vast reams of psychological research which point to the potentially very damaging effects on children of being denied access/information about one half of their genetic identity.

think about it (if you can) - what do you consider the impact on a child to be to be told that one of the people who made him is a monster?

All I am saying is that the court has to investigate why a parent is being denied access to a child. Sometimes there are extremely good reasons. But these reasons have to be investigated.

Its called the rule of law. You might want to investigate that further.

Hope that explains a bit 'why the fuck'. Biology is very far from an 'abstract' concept you know. Its why you are here.

Head can see it from the other side. I guess yes, as they are probably too you g to fully understand what is happening, that their father is abusive, it's for their own good that they are protected from him. babyname ds was being sexually abused by her ex, he hated his father, and was terrified of him. With hardtodance it is evident that it has gone wrong and her dd needs protecting. hard what does your dd feel towards her father?

There's a brilliant and balanced report by Sturge and Glaser about contact in cases of domestic abuse that the the high court have endorsed to be used by the lower courts for guidance.. If anyone can read it, it's really really good.

It's been a while since I read it, but it basically says that although domestic abuse isn't a bar to contact the following should be true for the balance of harm to be in favour of contact...
That the perpetrator is sorry, acknowledges his behaviour was wrong and wants to change and is making steps to change etc
That the perp understands the detrimental effects of DV on children
That the perp is clearly able to put the needs of the children before his own etc etc.
It also says that where there is no meaningful relationship it should be considered whether contact should start at all in cases where DV has been experienced..
And that the worst sequelaes of DV is the children basically turning out like the perpetrator...particularly with sons...

This makes perfect sense to me, however it's widely accepted that most abusive parents will get some kind of direct contact ending up with unsupervised staying contact.... Yet how many abusive parents fall within those criterion above? Mine didn't fulfil a single one including the prior meaningful relayionship. It's widely reported on mumsnet on virtually every thread regarding the subject that abusive people very very very rarely change...
This is my problem with the system and is completely reflected in the report I posted earlier from the family law week which is a very well respected journal... And means that thousands of genuinely protective parents have their concerns and experiences minimised and dismissed to make a case for contact and the whole family suffers severely x

As Head points out, it is simply wrong to try to turn this into a men/women issue.

Its an issue about damaged people, who spread their damage onto their partners and their children and so the cycle continues.

I am afraid there are women who lie and manipulate about abuse because they dislike the father of their child so much. This is why women like Sock have to put themselves through what she did in order to get clear proof of their abuse. Because some people muddy the waters quite considerably and the court has to proceed with caution.

I accept the family court system isn't perfect, or worse than that, doesn't seem to be working for a lot of people.

But this I am afraid is the inevitable consequence of asking a legal system to deal with psychological problems when stripping that legal system of its lawyers and removing access to resources for counselling etc from the general population.

It's not about mens rights this, womens rights that, it really isn't.

however it's widely accepted that most abusive parents will get some kind of direct contact ending up with unsupervised staying contact

Its not accepted by me. That isn't my experience. In care proceedings, abusive men never see their children again, because they are adopted.

In private law proceedings, I have had many cases where the fathers were restricted to letters three times a year.

The Sturge and Glaser report informed the case of Re L in 2000. This really isn't 'news' for any anyone in the family system, it is part of the framework in which we operate. Or should operate. I would like to know more about the judgements that caused Sock so much disquiet.

Do you know if any of these judgments were published Sock?

Like Head, we were on the flipside, with a mother who was emotionally abusive making false accusations against my husband. For us, the judges called it, refusing to believe her allegations, but she did continue to have unsupervised access, despite not meeting criteria above, most notably any recognition of her own behaviour (and both the appointed psychologist and the judge commented on this), and in fact social services were concerned enough about her contact after residency was agreed that we found out they were preparing to ask the court to move her to supervised (not that they ever told us this ) when she died.

Another angle of the legal aid reforms of course is even more incentive for malicious partners to allege domestic violence in court proceedings. My husband's ex attended two support groups, one of which was run by Women's Aid, and I gather that this is the sort of thing that is used to support legal aid claims. I have NO PROBLEM at all with genuine victims of DV getting support but the existence of false claims only makes it harder for them too, both in accessing resources and being believed.

I agree. The removal of legal aid unless there are issues of violence is of course a perverse incentive to encourage such allegations.

Everybody loses when this happens. Those who really are victims of abuse find themselves viewed with suspicion. We all get jaded.

My DD worships daddy, who wouldn't worship a man that never sends her to bed, never says no to chocolate, let's her eat takeaways, fast food, junk food, sweets, fizzy drinks. He doesn't make her bath, he doesn't do homework with her and has even told her she won't have to go to school if she lives with him as there are no schools where he lives. she literally does whatever she likes, zero rules, zero consequences! (all of which I say no too)
He is loaded and its all cash in hand so he does things like buy himself an iPad but tell her it's hers, she's not allowed to bring home though because we are all evil and will deliberately smash it because we are jealous.
She's told that we hate her, that we are the "bad side" that they are the good side.
I have never bad mouthed him apart from ONE time when I was utterly at the end of my wits, he'd told her that we don't love her and dont want her and we only send her to bed early (7.30 appropriate for her age not early at all) to get away from her because we don't want her around. But that he loves her the most and can't bare to be away from her not one single second not even when she's sleeping that's why he doesn't send her to bed. I said that ANYONE who tells her mummy doesn't love her is evil and a disgusting liar. I was pregnant and exhausted and went and cried about it after but when you deal with this sort of stuff week after week sometimes, it's breaks you.
He however CONSTANTLY bad mouths me, DD believes that my parenting is all hatful, cruel, selfish behaviour because that's what's she told by a man she trusts. I have always made excuses for him believe I was doing the right thing, when she was younger she HATED that he would say horrible things about me, she would beg him to come home, she would scream and kick when it was time to go, she would come home and cry and I would just say that maybe he didn't understand she was upset, maybe he didn't realise how badly she wanted to come home, he didn't mean it sometimes people say things they don't mean. It worked sort of when she was little, now she does yells at me, he does mean it your a liar. Feel like in doing the "right thing" a have HELPED him sabotage my relationship with her.
She doesn't know what he does is abusive. She also over the years appears to have become immune to the things that used to make her miserable, before when he would show her shows that were way to old for her she would get nightmares for weeks, now she comes home and tells me about things like car accidents with blood pouring down the dead ladies face, I asked her if she was scared and she said NO, she didn't have nightmares either, she's desensitised or something. It frightens me.
When he fake cries infront of her to make her not want to come home she doesn't know it's abusive, she feels like she has to protect him, like its her responsibility to make him happy. She's the parent in their relationship and he's the child.
She loves him, she wants to see him most of the time. She absolutely adores his partner and children who do actually treat her well, she doesn't like being alone with him because that's when he mainly slags me off or makes her say horrible things about me (and records it to play to people)

She's an extremely confused little lady and desperately wants to believe everything daddy says, but also doesn't want to believe that mummy doesn't love her, he is damaging her but yes, she adores him

She would also be over the moon if I gave her a lit firework to play with, wouldn't end well though.

Before legal aid was removed. If you had a decent income and massive outgoings mortgage you couldn't get legal aid either. Self representing happened before the cuts.

Yes, it's very hard. Tehre was a massive issue when impoverished non working women with nothing to lose could get legal aid in family proceedings whilst hard working husbands on £20k a year could not - it was totally unequal. Now you could argue it's more equal - neither can afford lawyers unless someone can allege domestic violence which as someone said above then becomes an incentive to invent it. All very hard.

If your in a court situation there will have been dv. What well functioning couple would end up in court. You probably have one with low self esteem and one with a personality disorder like npd or anti social pd. I think as part of the court applocation process everyone should give up medical records and have psych evaluation. You can fool cafcass you can't a psychiatrist and Exh was found to have a mh dx I didn't know about through that process. my mh was exonorated minus depression. It would put people off making applications and help find who the person with the issues are and what the issues are.

If your in a court situation there will have been dv

Eh?

You can fool cafcass you can't a psychiatrist

I'd disagree with that.

Well Exh fooled cafcass he didn't fool a psychiatrist who found exhs parenting "limited" during assessment.

EA is a form of dv.

I don't think you can say that if you are in a court situation there will have been either emotional or physical abuse.

all you can say with any certainty is that here are two people who can't agree on what is the best thing for their child. Some of course are motivated by bitterness or inherent psychological dysfunction/vulnerability.

But not all. for example, in cases of one parent wishing to relocate to another jurisdiction because they have a great new job, for eg. This often ends up in court because the parents can't agree on what is the right thing to do; this doesn't mean necessarily that either wishes to abuse the other or make life more difficult for them; they just have a genuine difference of opinion.

You are right, I hadn't thought of that type of scenario.

Oh hard that must be absolutely awful, as she is so young, she cannot understand that they things you do for her, and for her own good, whereas her dad allows her to run wild. Well he would have the weight of the law, if he did not send her to school. She is really confused . I totally agree with Spero, contact if safe, and its the safe bit that is important. Yes as I sad previously, transparency within the court system, and a regular review or audit of the judgements are needed. Really you need professionals, to wake up and do their job!

Once he got custody he'd send her to school, he's just brainwashing her to get her to say she wants to live with him. I have no doubt the application for residency will be made once he has moved in with his latest victim partner and she will be the one doing the actual day-to-day care. He's spent years brainwashing her, recording her slugging me off, she comes home and tells me how sorry she is, "daddy made me say this daddy made me say that, I'm so sorry mummy, I didn't mean it, I do love you I promise I do"
He even pulls crap like tell her I give the worst haircuts in the world and have made her look stupid, she then refuses to let me cut her hair, screams if I try, I clip her hair back instead of cut it, then he goes down the school on parents evening and says "you can see she's neglecting her, she hasn't even cut her hair for 6 months" he deliberately caused that situation to make me look bad AND had it logged at the school!
I'm so certain that when he does go for residence he will get it, she's been brainwashed into saying she wants to live there, bullied into saying awful things about me and he's recorded it, and goes down the school badmouthing me to them when he's caused half the problems I face. It's unreal.

What an evil piece of work [hard], do you think he will get full residency? He should not even have contact. surely it works the other way too, so you would be entitled to contact. God it doesent bare thinking about. I would most certainly go to the Police re sexual behaviour, what she has told you about being made to kiss boys and share a bed without pants with her father and other things. Would she talk to the Police?

Sounds awful.

I never understand these children. Mines are such independent thinkers. if a parent says something they assume it's wrong. The idea anyone could persuade them into anything just seems ridiculous. Why are some children able to be conned like this and others aren't? Also my children would want to go to school. If a parent said they didn't have to they'd think that weird and they'd lose their friends and refuse not to go to school, surely most children would be like that.

Lotus hards dd is still only 6 and a young child, who can be easily manipulated, we are not talking about a 9/10/11 year old. Yes to have loads of sweets and fizzy drinks, and now t do boring stuff like, bath, self care, eating healthily and staying up late, is probably a young childs delight.

Obviously not all children are alike, if a child is being abused such as in hards situation, it can make them more vulnerable. The onus should not be placed on the child to protect themselves, the professionals should be protecting them.

Yes but when someone is continually drip feeding a young child it must be very hard for the child to know what is right and what isn't especially if that person also does 'nice' things for them. It's hard enough for an adult in that situation.
It obviously happens a lot, which is why abusers are able to groom children and their parents, and why intelligent wonen find themselves in horrendously abusive situations

I agree baby, it's grooming, yes it is confusing for anyone let alone a young child, when they are having conflicting messages at them, and the abusive parents is in effect gaslighting the child.

My stepchildren were subjected to huge amounts of bad mouthing of their father, and me, when I came on the scene. They were told he didn't love them, that they had to change their names, that their grandparents would stop loving them when their cousin was born etc. They were told to refer to me only by a very rude word that neither of them understood. They were allowed to do pretty much anything they wanted etc. They were both deeply miserable and had already themselves at pretty young ages (6 and 10) started to restrict their contact with their mother, but if they'd been a bit younger it would have been devastating I think. As it is, we are still, five years after she died, trying to untangle the mental scars.