DD saying her dad is scary.

[Shockedatthesystem80]

My daughter only sees her father in a contact centre.. We've been going through the family court for nearly 1.5 years so far and no closer to a final resolution.. She has a 2 hour session.
Most of the time her session is positive. Her father was extremely physically and mentally abusive towards her. He is a very cruel man who the last Judge got the better measure of and has refused his multiple requests to increase contact.
In recent weeks, she's been saying to other people that her daddy is scary and he hurts her, obviously the latter part isn't true as his session is completely supervised. I've taken her to the session as usual this week and she ran up to the supervisor and said "my daddy is scary" and got very upset. The supervisor looked puzzled and said why are you saying that you have lots of fun with dad. Then she asks me if it's OK to ask her why she's saying that, I said of course.. She has however been telling people at nursery the same thing lately and I've made an appointment for her health visitor to see her as I'm worried she is still being traumatised.
The supervisor text me during the session to say that she's having a nice time and ran up to him straight away and it's odd that she said "my daddy is scary"
I said to her, no it's not odd.. You only see 2 hours of her life.. You can't cast aspersions on anything else.. I said if you're trying to make inference that I would denigrate him in front of her then I don't take kindly to that.
My daughters father is so cruel and abusive, there is a reason why he's having supervised contact..
I feel like she's inferred I've basically told her to say he's scary and I'm really upset because Irrespective of how abusive he's been to us both, I absolutely would never denigrate him to or in front of her because quite frankly she's been through enough in her short life.
I'm not sure what the point in posting is, but I feel like these supervisors are siding with him when they are supposed to remain impartial. He plays dad's of the fucking year in his contact sessions, I swallow every bit of how I feel and supress my emotions and take her, I've never missed a single session to date.
I just don't like how I've been made to feel.

OP it was said on the last thread and I think it's still relevant on this one - you're pushing your anxieties and fears about your ex and court onto relatively minor matters at the contact centre.
I'm not suggesting everything is perfect but it comes across that you're looking for errors or evidence that people are on 'his side' and trying to find/prove to everyone that you're right every time. That isn't going to help your case or help the court take your concerns seriously. Nor is taking about the contact centre staff like they're stupid. Just because they are polite to him or pointing out that a child might need a wee doesn't mean they're colluding with him, it doesn't mean they think he's dad of the year, it doesn't mean they're going to recommend he sees her unsupervised. They're there to ensure your daughter is safe and that her needs are met during the session, and they're required to provide feedback on what is asked of dad, which is to turn up, interact with his daughter, and not to be a dick to anyone while he's there. Nobody who works with children around family contact thinks that a parent turning up and playing with a child every couple of weeks qualifies them to care for a child - it's really not hard to keep things together for an hour or so every few weeks, it's basically what you'd ask of a teenage babysitter.
You keep making an issue of the section 7. It's no difference whether it's done by the LA or an ISW. It'd mean a different person writing the analysis and recommendation, but they'll have access to the same information to make that judgement. ISWs request access to LA records and have access to the court bundle. Again that's information you've had before. It's entirely normal for a parent or solicitor to ask for an ISW if they feel history means a particular worker could be biased against them. Whether bias is a legitimate concern again is a matter for the court, who will decide who should write the report.
Of course your ex is going to ask for more contact, he'll be asking for anything he can to regain control. You just have to let the courts deal with that.

I know I'm being blunt but you do seem to have a pattern of posting on here when you're very anxious, receiving a lot of affirming comments from people with their own frustrations about court/exes to get a lot of 'yes its terrible/disgusting/won't someone think of the children/ITS SAFEGUARDING type posts.

That's only going to heighten your anxieties and your distrust of professionals. The courts will really want you to look at the bigger overall picture, not to be keeping a tally of he said/she said/he did/she did. I've been in court where parents have come armed with a list of every perceived transgression, every fault of the ex and the professionals. They think it shows to the court that they're the only one safeguarding the child. The court see it otherwise and don't give time to hear it, it's perceived as point scoring for the parents agenda and not that they're actually looking out for the child. I'm not suggesting you're at that point but I'm saying it to be cautious that you're not tempted to go down that route.

@Kneesaregood

OP it was said on the last thread and I think it's still relevant on this one - you're pushing your anxieties and fears about your ex and court onto relatively minor matters at the contact centre. I'm not suggesting everything is perfect but it comes across that you're looking for errors or evidence that people are on 'his side' and trying to find/prove to everyone that you're right every time. That isn't going to help your case or help the court take your concerns seriously. Nor is taking about the contact centre staff like they're stupid. Just because they are polite to him or pointing out that a child might need a wee doesn't mean they're colluding with him, it doesn't mean they think he's dad of the year, it doesn't mean they're going to recommend he sees her unsupervised. They're there to ensure your daughter is safe and that her needs are met during the session, and they're required to provide feedback on what is asked of dad, which is to turn up, interact with his daughter, and not to be a dick to anyone while he's there. Nobody who works with children around family contact thinks that a parent turning up and playing with a child every couple of weeks qualifies them to care for a child - it's really not hard to keep things together for an hour or so every few weeks, it's basically what you'd ask of a teenage babysitter. You keep making an issue of the section 7. It's no difference whether it's done by the LA or an ISW. It'd mean a different person writing the analysis and recommendation, but they'll have access to the same information to make that judgement. ISWs request access to LA records and have access to the court bundle. Again that's information you've had before. It's entirely normal for a parent or solicitor to ask for an ISW if they feel history means a particular worker could be biased against them. Whether bias is a legitimate concern again is a matter for the court, who will decide who should write the report. Of course your ex is going to ask for more contact, he'll be asking for anything he can to regain control. You just have to let the courts deal with that.

I know I'm being blunt but you do seem to have a pattern of posting on here when you're very anxious, receiving a lot of affirming comments from people with their own frustrations about court/exes to get a lot of 'yes its terrible/disgusting/won't someone think of the children/ITS SAFEGUARDING type posts.

That's only going to heighten your anxieties and your distrust of professionals. The courts will really want you to look at the bigger overall picture, not to be keeping a tally of he said/she said/he did/she did. I've been in court where parents have come armed with a list of every perceived transgression, every fault of the ex and the professionals. They think it shows to the court that they're the only one safeguarding the child. The court see it otherwise and don't give time to hear it, it's perceived as point scoring for the parents agenda and not that they're actually looking out for the child. I'm not suggesting you're at that point but I'm saying it to be cautious that you're not tempted to go down that route.

I don't think you're aware of the previous history that took place. And I have every right to dispute the use of an ISW when I know exactly why he's requesting one. We would not have the same local authority worker or cafcass officer at section 7, it would be an entirely different person. I understand what you're saying.. But that is you're opinion. You don't know our life and everything we've had to go through to get to where we are today.

I'm aware of the history that you've posted on your other threads, obviously that's only a tiny part of what has actually gone on. I do worry that your response is what I've said happens in court - that if your views about safety are challenged you come back with a variance of 'no one else understands it like I do, I'm the only one who is keeping her safe'.
I'm not saying it to have a go and you don't have to prove anything to me, I'm just saying what I've seen played out in court many times before and encouraging you to take a step back and think about whether you're at risk of doing the same.

For what it's worth I didn't say you weren't allowed to query him asking for an ISW. I actually think it's in your favour if he gets one though as itd reduce the likelihood of further challenge. From what you'd described in your earlier threads the safeguarding social worker might have got a bit over invested/personally involved, so if it would be either an ISW or allocated to a different LA SW or dept that would be better. The courts try and keep the same guardian involved but it depends whether they're available and if it's still an area they can cover (eg if moving from public to private law)

How can you possibly say the local authority social worker who assisted us in fleeing was over invested. You literally don't have a clue.. She came out of a Marac referral that was made by the police, she wasn't over invested. She made it very clear to me had I not fled DD would've been taken off me. I actually don't think you have a clue what you're talking about, either that.. Or you are used to representing or aiding abusive men. You didn't even read the thread properly and asked if I posted about cancelling contact due to going to a dirty park. Perhaps if you read things properly you might be a bit more informed.

The courts do not keep the same cafcass officer involved. The cafcass officer who would author the section 7 would be different from the one who does the safeguarding letter. It's two completely different teams. Cafcass close their involvement after the safeguarding stage unless instructed by the court to still remain involved. If its ordered that cafcass or the local authority do the section 7, it will be a completely different officer or social worker. I've been told this directly by cafcass. So I really do not think you know what you're talking about.

And the safeguarding officer from cafcass wasn't over invested either. When they received our court order the immediately challenged the judge. There's no way you can call trying to protect a vulnerable child being over invested. You don't know the ins and outs of our case.

I'm out.
I haven't claimed to know the ins and outs of your case. I've tried to provide advice based on what you've posted on here, what I recall from your other posts from memory and from my experience in social work - I've a lot of court experience both as a social worker and manager, across different teams in children's social work.

My comment about the LA SW possibly being over invested was re previous comments you'd made about them being in touch when your child wasn't allocated and inferring they'd support your case no matter what, which read to me as tipping over from professional concern to perhaps blurring boundaries/taking sides.

I have had cases where a guardian with prior knowledge of a case has been called to write a report for a later case. Just as I've been called to provide evidence for a case after moving teams. That can happen. It may not be your experience and that's fine but there's no need to accuse me of lying.

Regardless, it suits your narrative to assume that I'm someone who sides with abusive men then that's up to you, that's pretty insulting but I'm not going to dwell on it. I don't think there's any merit discussing it further and only you can decide how you approach your case.

@Kneesaregood

I'm out. I haven't claimed to know the ins and outs of your case. I've tried to provide advice based on what you've posted on here, what I recall from your other posts from memory and from my experience in social work - I've a lot of court experience both as a social worker and manager, across different teams in children's social work.

My comment about the LA SW possibly being over invested was re previous comments you'd made about them being in touch when your child wasn't allocated and inferring they'd support your case no matter what, which read to me as tipping over from professional concern to perhaps blurring boundaries/taking sides.

I have had cases where a guardian with prior knowledge of a case has been called to write a report for a later case. Just as I've been called to provide evidence for a case after moving teams. That can happen. It may not be your experience and that's fine but there's no need to accuse me of lying.

Regardless, it suits your narrative to assume that I'm someone who sides with abusive men then that's up to you, that's pretty insulting but I'm not going to dwell on it. I don't think there's any merit discussing it further and only you can decide how you approach your case.

You don't even read the thread properly though before commenting.. So I'm a bit baffled as to how you can relate your experience to anything I'm going through with my DD. You may well have knowledge as above, but every case is different and unique. Nobody has been over invested in our case.

Kneesaregood is talking reasonably and talking a lot of sense. I also remember your previous thread and the advice you were given on that thread.

None of us know the ins and outs of your case, from any angle, we only have what you have shared on this and your other threads.

What knees has been trying to make you see is that how you approach this will make a huge difference to how seriously you are taken in court. The more minor things you lost, the more it makes you seem like a hysterical woman playing he said/she said. It shouldn’t be that way, it’s sucks, but it’s reality. You must remain calm and considered and choose your points and targets carefully. Going after the wrong people for the wrong things will not help you and could actually go against you.

People who have experience of the system have told you this on previous threads, that you need to quickly get your wits about you and understand how the system works, (because it doesn’t necessarily work how it should or how you’d expect) and then learn how to use it to your advantage, not playing into his hands inadvertently which is what many PP have warned you may be in danger of doing atm.

*list off not lost

But I've not actually done anything other than raise some concerns with the contact centre.. How can she completely dismiss a child saying their father is scary.. Please don't accuse me of projecting my anxieties onto my daughter either.. I've held it together through it all, I'm not about to do that now after we've been through the worst possible thing we could have.

' I actually don't think you have a clue what you're talking about, either that.. Or you are used to representing or aiding abusive men. '

You're basically throwing the same accusation at this poster that you're throwing at the contact centre worker. Both are trying to help you and haven't said anything in favour of your ex at all!

OP I reported your name change fail but you've done it again. I reported it again but be careful if you're trying to stay anon.

Your 3 year old might not have a sw but she will have a court guardian who needs to intervene

Show them the reports from the contact centre and talk to the guardian about the child's wishes they should never be forced to do something they're not comfortable with

If court proceedings have finished you can apply to the court to vary the order or just stop contact and wait for your ex to take you back to court to enforce the order.

Keep records of everything

@Shockedatthesystem80

The whole thing makes me feel so uncomfortable.. If I don't take her to contact ill be breaching the court order. She's so quick to defend him when I question anything. She's not impartial at all.

Breech the court order if it's in the child's best interest they'll never enforce it if it's not, that's if your ex takes it back to court?

I remember your other threads OP.
Have you had any support or counselling? You keep hitting the same obstacles and your attitude towards them isn't shifting. This means you're going to hit them again and again and again. Which means you're less likely to achieve anything different for your DD. You need to seek support for yourself so you can be the best advocate for your DD.
There are massive problems with the family court system. I don't think anyone with experience of it (either professionally or personally) would disagree. But there are posters on here who don't have knowledge of how the system works (and are 'supporting' you with incorrect information that will not help you and will be detrimental to your case) and there are posters arguing about word usage because they disagree with the terms used within the system. But those words have meaning within the system and the processes that exist are the ones you need to work within. They are not ideal but they're all we currently have.
From your threads, I'm concerned that any valid criticisms you may have are going to get lost because you are complaining constantly about every step of the process and are distrustful of everyone involved in it.
You have sound advice on this thread from experienced professionals. Please read their advice. Ignore the posters trying to embroil you in their personal crusades. And seek counselling for yourself to enable you to be the best advocate possible for your DD.

It's not helpful advice to breach the court order and won't help me in the long run.

@Cait73

Your 3 year old might not have a sw but she will have a court guardian who needs to intervene

Show them the reports from the contact centre and talk to the guardian about the child's wishes they should never be forced to do something they're not comfortable with

If court proceedings have finished you can apply to the court to vary the order or just stop contact and wait for your ex to take you back to court to enforce the order.

Keep records of everything

She doesn't have a guardian as of yet. Is this appointed out of the courts own volition or can it be requested by counsel?

Breech the court order if it's in the child's best interest they'll never enforce it if it's not, that's if your ex takes it back to court?

This is insanely bad advice

It's very wrong to assume they won't enforce it. I have a friend who has a penal notice and suspended community service as a result of multiple breaches. So don't assume.

@ElizaDarcysDeeds “and there are posters arguing about word usage because they disagree with the terms used within the system. But those words have meaning within the system and the processes that exist are the ones you need to work within. They are not ideal but they're all we currently have.”

I can both disagree with the words and processes used by the system and at the same time recognise that the OP has to work within those. I haven’t told the OP not to work with those processes.

My posts ‘arguing about words usage’ are about the fact that the rest of us need to think about how we use words and how we can challenge words used/demonstrate the flaws in those words or systems. If we don’t, the words and processes we currently have won’t change. OP isn’t in a position to do this right now, but the rest of us are and that was what I was trying to point out - because it saddens me to see that in the 11 years since I first had experience within the family court system, nothing much seems to have changed.

@AprilHeather I don't disagree with your wider points. I just don't think this thread is the place for them. OP is a poster who regularly posts about her problems with the system. Your complaints and comments are valid but ultimately on a thread like this may confuse or overshadow the advice the OP needs. If you have another thread here of your own about those issues, then please link because I think those issues are important and I think the wider campaigns around the family courts need as much support as possible. It's just they aren't going to help the OP just now.

[quote ElizaDarcysDeeds]@AprilHeather I don't disagree with your wider points. I just don't think this thread is the place for them. OP is a poster who regularly posts about her problems with the system. Your complaints and comments are valid but ultimately on a thread like this may confuse or overshadow the advice the OP needs. If you have another thread here of your own about those issues, then please link because I think those issues are important and I think the wider campaigns around the family courts need as much support as possible. It's just they aren't going to help the OP just now.[/quote]
@ElizaDarcysDeeds as I stated earlier, personally I don’t have the time or resources to start a campaign as I am now dealing with the fallout of the flawed family court system with my own teenage children, but thank you for offering to engage in further discussion. In my professional capacity, I do constantly challenge my own and others’ language around safeguarding and I suppose I had hoped to see the same happen here. I thought by tagging the person directly that I was replying to, it was obvious that the comment was meant for them. Thank you for pointing out that this wasn’t so clear - I shall stop doing that now.

@Shockedatthesystem80 you have some very good advice and in particular from kneesaregood - especially regarding listing every transgression ending up being unhelpful. I would speak to your solicitor and refer to the professional advice here so you are clear what is and isn’t helpful for you to raise and the best ways to go about this. I know this can be frustrating but as I and others have recognised, the system is flawed. With that in mind, I do refer you back to my earlier comments re: therapeutic parenting. If the system does fail your child, if you are trauma and attachment informed you will be better able to support her. I apologise if I may have slightly derailed the thread by discussing language use, that wasn’t my intention and I shall stop posting on this thread now. I do understand on a personal level how very very difficult this is for you and I am sorry you and your DD are going through this. 💐

@Shockedatthesystem80 they should be appointed a court guardian as standard procedure my child wasn't I had to push for it

Our contact is supervised and it's (also) court ordered and although the parents he has contact with are not safe to "parent" him alone I accept contact is safe.

If I felt it wasn't it's within my remit to stop contact and I wouldn't hesitate BUT I'm very mindful how important it is for children that they have a sense of identity and they can only do that knowing both parents, wherever possible

Obviously safety is paramount (my child is 2) but the contact centre is safe. I have a good relationship with the staff who I know wouldn't hesitate to pull him from contact if he was ever at risk or even uncomfortable.

It's just knowing what to do that's all. I didn't appreciate pp saying the safeguarding stage cafcass officer was over invested.. That's her opinion and not fact , the cafcass officer contacted the court of her own volition after discussion with her seniors. With Pd12j engaged in our case, the highest risk had to be assumed for the child. The order that was originally made which cafcass challenged was a different order where contact was facilitated in an extremely unsafe way which led to DD and I being at risk.. The order we have now for contact centre is as a result of a varied order.. The cafcass officer was in our hearing and firmly stood by the fact there should be no interim contact as he is such a risk to us both.. I think the starting point is talking to my solicitor and asking them to reiterate to the contact centre they need to adhere to the terms of the order.. I will raise my concerns directly with the supervisor in an email. I can't ignore the way she completely dismissed DD and she inferred as if I was responsible for what she was saying when I haven't once denigrated him to or in front of her. I don't project my feelings or anxieties onto her because I'm an incredibly strong person and at the end of the day, she only has me..