To be shocked and offended by this judges comments.

[ifgrandmahadawilly]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3317909/The-chilling-details-judgment-ordered-mother-hand-baby-gay-couple-gagging-order-prevented-telling-story.html

I just read this article in the daily mail about a judge who ordered immediate removal of a 15 month old breastfeeding toddler from its mother.

The judge criticised the mother for bedsharing and using a sling to carry and breastfeed the child in. She actually thinks that this level of attachent will be detrimental to the child!

Now obviously we don't have all of the details of this case and I'm not saying that the judge was wrong to move the child because we only have one side of the story. BUT the judge has made some shockingly ignorant comments which may affect precedent for future cases!

Is it too much to ask that family court judges, people who are making decisions which are supposed to be about protecting the child's best interests, actually have some idea what children need? Maybe some training in child development?

The bit about the toddler being young, so will soon get o er being suddenly seperates from her primary caregiver were bonkers too. This woman has no idea!

I don't think the judgement was the right way to go. I don't think any of the parents or the fathers partner behaved well and I think the end result is not ideal. I also think the judgement is punitive rather than child centric.

I think the aims of the judge could have been achieved in a far less traumatic way for the child, and the risk the judge percieved could have been managed in other ways that wouldn't have placed either parent in the position the mother is in.

The judgement is pretty much formalising in a round the houses way a surragacy arangement yet not doing it in the way it should be. Whilst yes the mother refused the required order for this to occur the correct way but the child is a product of surrogacy or she is not.

But I do think the father of the child should be the RP.

The CM thing, in a standard sperm doner or surrogacy arangement then why should CM be claimed as the paying person would not be considered to be a parent BUT it appears that both bio parents percieved each other as being more than a walk away donor so as a parent of some description however limited,so yes it's quite right that the NRP should pay it.

I don't think any of the parents or the fathers partner behaved well and I think the end result is not ideal. I also think the judgement is punitive rather than child centric.

Can you explain this?
It's a genuine question, because I can not see where the father has behaved badly. Nor can I see where it is not child centric.

Obviously this is personal opinion,

Quite clearly the mother has behaved badly I'm going to leave off the attachment parenting and Breast feeding because I think the complaints about that are wrong given the timing, but she has not engaged when she should have done she made up allegations and she got very dramatic about colds and minor viruses.

But I also do t think it's stellar behaviour to try and cure a headache with a hammer nor do I think it's appropriate to inflame a situation just because you have the legal right to

I personally feel that overnight contact being put on the table at 4 ish months old (afair from reading the judgement several months ago) is a questionable request given the situation and even at 8 months 2 weeks when it was first ordered is a little questionable.

Both parties did not formalise as far as was possible the intention or arrangement in advance by not doing so they failed to prioritise the child's welfare.

A child centric order would have mitigated the risks without reducing or hindering one of the parental relationships just the same as when dealing with any other case of separated parents where the NRP had issues, this order in essence reduces a parental relationship to that of a distant extended family member.

Throughout the judgement it's made clear that this is because the mother has presented as spiteful this is punitive not child centric.

A very short session supervised contact order for any longer than a small number of months is the type of order that most parents can only dream of when dealing with a significantly violently abusive NRP

As is an order to prevent further applications especially when it has been acknowledged that in relation to this child no vexatious applications have been made these orders are more usual when there have been many many years of very silly applications,

I would also have expected to see previous order (or reference to one) with if you do x residency will transfer and contact will be minimal or if you cannot do x this will happen, not just it happening.

But why is the child ok with just the mother and not the father, but 'not child-centric' with just the father?
Why can the mother have the child for 4 months 24 hrs a day, but the father cannot have 1 overnight in that period?
If a mother dies in childbirth, should a foster woman look after the child until at least 8 months old, as the father is not appropriate?

I think the reason for the supervised visitation only is that the mother has a track record of sending her children abroad to frustrate the family courts. The judge mentioned being concerned that no one could confirm that the child didn't have a Romanian passport and was clearly worried she'd do a repeat of the trick she pulled with her last two daughters and send the child abroad.

That's being obtuse carol did you miss the bit where I said I thought the dad should be the RP.

If the mother did not exist then the child would not be being Breast fed and the mother would not be being the primary carer.

How the change over happened and the punitive way it was done is not child centric as opposed to anything other than that.

Where have I said the mother should have the baby 24/7 and the father not at all?

In an ideal world and in the absence of any abuse ect then I do think both parents should have been able to act like grown ups put their differences aside and come to an arangement that supported breastfeeding but also supported co parenting without one having to give up their home, because in the long run any joint parenting required to support BF is such a short time in that childs life.

The visitation is the way it is as the woman has sent children abroad before in similar circumstances.

It's clear she shouldn't be trusted blindly.

I really don't see how wanting to have your own child over night is automatically not putt the child first. Every child and situation is different.

I still can not see how the father ha behaved badly.

I think the reason for the supervised visitation only is that the mother has a track record of sending her children abroad to frustrate the family courts

A risk that can be minimised significantly using other methods (I know I've had to do it with one of my children) and does not require such minimal contact.

My estranged husband was caught attempting to board a plane with our 4yo some years ago,he openly admitted in court it was an abduction attempt and that he thought it was acceptable conduct. We were able to make contact safe and remove the abduction risk (and other risks) using other court orders and he was able to have safe contact twice a week started off supervised moved to unsupervised then overnights. Because that's what happens when a NRP is commited to contact but just wants it to be safe.

I still can not see how the father ha behaved badly

Even the judge in her own judgement makes a comment about an aspect of the parties conduct not reflecting well on any of them!

When both of my children were 4 months old they breastfed several times throughout the night. To have disrupted that would have been incredibly distressing for them. Hell, they both fed in the night at 14 months old.

I think many breastfeeding mothers would find an entire overnight away from their baby to be an unreasonably difficult requirement for a child with established breastfeeding pattern.

ven the judge in her own judgement makes a comment about an aspect of the parties conduct not reflecting well on any of them!

In regards to not having the right agreement?

No I think in relation to the handover which the mother filmed secretly. Comment was basically that none of them came out well but H best.

NeedsAsockamnesty

"We were able to make contact safe and remove the abduction risk (and other risks) using other court orders and he was able to have safe contact twice a week started off supervised moved to unsupervised then overnights. Because that's what happens when a NRP is commited to contact but just wants it to be safe."

The judgement clearly says that there will only be supervised contact while there is a need. There is a need right now but perhaps not forever while S proves that she wants what is best for her child. How is that any different to what you just described?

Because the supervision was only whilst we were able to get the other orders in place to allow for the means required to remove the risks (we are talking weeks) it was not open ended and it didn't confer any greater rights on me over the childs father.And it had a very clear timetable and path towards normal contact.

It didn't give me the right to still be having supervised several months later.

It also didn't give me the right to restrict the amount of contact to such a minimal amount of time.

You do not reduce the risk of abduction by leaving the abductor as primary carer, particularly when you are unable to take the child's passports.
The change-over would have been significantly less traumatic and unnecessary if the mother had behaved sensibly.

Can you find one post I have made that says the mother should have remained as the primary carer?

Tbh from the daily mail story it's not clear why she hasn't had much contact so far.

Given the history of the case it's likely to be as much down to the mother as it is the courts or fathers.

It also seems that the mother doesn't think she should pay for the child because she sees her little. Given what we know so far, it not a stretch to imagine it's the mother causing problems again.

Of course it's not, but it's also not a stretch to suggest that if you have two patents caught up in a huge cycle of conflict that it's a bad move to hand open ended power over one to the other especially after openly stating that whilst one parties behaviour is worse the other parties have done things that do not show them in a good light either. And then restricting the subsequent less equal parents ability to obtain a further order.

Doing so seams at odds with breaking the cycle of conflict

Except the father was offering 50:50, I believe he continued to offer this for a long time.

That would suggest the limited amount of time the mother is spending with her dd is not down to the father.

No one can say for sure, but based on what we know...I wouldn't be prepared to judge the court or father for the fact that the mother isn't seeing much of her child.

Of course not. I'm going solely on the wording of the judgement.

What would be more usual would be a time scale for improvement and its usually quite short term.

When orders with clear time tables exist it's a lot easier to know where the issue is and whose "fault" it is. If you are wishing to assign blame.

Obviously assigning blame is rarely a great thing for the child so I'm not really interested in that. But there are other significant benefits to a clear timetable and clear expectations and them not being regulated by one parent over another and it just surprised me not to see that in the judgement.

needs apologies if I mis-read your posts, but you did appear to be arguing that the father should not have been RP.
The judge gave supervised contact 'for as long as necessary' and then moving to unsupervised 'as soon as possible'. Surely the path to unsupervised contact lies with the mother behaving reasonably and submitting the Romanian passports.
The power is not with the Father, but the social workers who supervise.
Not sure what else should have been done?

But I do think the father of the child should be the RP

carol a quote from my very first post on this thread.