To think family courts side with women?

[Bluelightlover]

A colleague of mine split up with his wife January last year. Since then she has made it very difficult for him to see his daughter. The ex has told the 11y daughter lies including that he financially abandoned them (he's still paying for the full mortgage and child maintenance). She went as far to get the school to fund raise for her when my colleague had sent her £5k. That he is emotionally unfit to look after his daughter and he was abusive to the wife during their marriage. She submitted 40 pages of evidence to the court but none of it had actual proof. I.e she couldn't remember dates, no police or social services involvement etc. I don't want to go into specifics without outing him. In his and his family's view the wife had committed parental alienation and now his daughter wants nothing to do with him or his family. He paid a huge sum to go to court. But his solicitor said that the court is likely to side with the woman. I am female and a mum and feel so disheartened if this is the case. Yes of course in clear cut cases of domestic violence/abuse etc but when it's her word against his why would he not be able to have a relationship with his daughter? I thought family courts try to do everything to ensure both parents had a relationship with their child?

Makes sure your friend is armed with the facts, his sending £5000, paying the mortgage etc all this is easy proved. And if she tries to claim otherwise the courts will take a very dim view of it.

I believe when it comes to who the child lives with they will side with the mother unless there are serious concerns.

But IME I actually find they side with men a lot more.
Like it’s acceptable for the fathers to not have been involved much but if it’s a mother who chose to leave then she is painted in a worse light.

Ultimately they should try and do what’s best for the child and that is having a relationship with both parents, which could be supervised access or contact over the phone even.

I would also advise that unless you have been with your partner not long after his child was conceived then you won’t know the full story and only know one side.
I do find it hard to believe that the ex had 40pages worth of proof without any actual evidence on there.

Sorry just realised you said it’s a colleague and they’ve only been separated a year.

Honestly you don’t know enough to comment as you are not involved sbd without the full details it’s impossible to say if the courts are siding with the mum or dad.

Sounds like in this case they’ll side with mum as she has genuine concerns. Although they will try and maintain a relationship between both parents especially if he was involved for 10years.

Why is this always the first comment. As if no men can ever be right, or decent, or good parents, ever. And women are holier than thou. There's some shite awful mother's out there folks.

That is true but it is also true that in cases like these the other side needs to be known. Not all judges automatically just give rights to the mother without sufficient enough evidence. My own bf divorced her husband. She wanted shared custody and he was ok with that until his mum got involved and he changed to full custody. He was made resident parent only because he had a full-time job and she had a been a SAHM taking care of him (he has fibromyalgia), their child, their dogs and battling her own health issues (found out later it was early signs of MS). Judge told her the only reason he didn’t give her custody was because she didn’t have the means to take care of their son which was true. Her ex had kicked her out of their house and she was forced to move in with a relative hours away because she didn’t have anyone else to stay with. On top of that, she had to pay him maintenance and could only see their son on holidays and a certain number of weeks in the summer. He also had a better lawyer due to his family’s connections to the town they were in and she could barely afford one.

In the end, his mum was taking their child to her home while he was at their old home doing what he wanted. She slowly gathered evidence against him after coming to pick up their son early finding the home unfit to live in. There was trash everywhere, dirty dishes, flies, etc.. He wouldn’t let her inside after he kicked her out and she realised why. They have shared custody now despite this and she’s married to a much better man. Their son was 4 at the time.

How can you say it sides with the woman before it even gets to court?

Courts allow abusive men access so how can that be siding with women?

No, the courts side with the child/ren.

That might not give people the result they want or expect, but an impartial third party view is often very much needed, and theoretically that's what the courts provide.

My husband has full custody of his daughters, my DSDs. He was the best parent for them to be with. I watched the court case play out from the sidelines and won't lie, was PETRIFIED that they would be sent to be with their mum, but the courts aren't stupid, they see through stories and fluff.

I've read some ghastly stories on here from women who have had no choice but to hand their distressed children over to abusive father's for contact so I'm not convinced that family courts favour women.

I'd be taking your colleagues story with a pinch of salt

The same family courts that force children to have contact with fathers who have been abusive?

Family court is all kinds of fucked up.

In my experience the family court sides with whoever is most aggressive and determined to cause pain. If one party is like that and the other more reasonable, the reasonable person gets fucked over and the court either stands by or actively helps the aggressor.

I think you only have the side of a random colleague and that there a very few women in this world who would genuinely go to such lengths to make contact so difficult without good reason.

@Boood

In my experience the family court sides with whoever is most aggressive and determined to cause pain. If one party is like that and the other more reasonable, the reasonable person gets fucked over and the court either stands by or actively helps the aggressor.

Yes I would agree with this.

@BurntO

I think you only have the side of a random colleague and that there a very few women in this world who would genuinely go to such lengths to make contact so difficult without good reason.

There are certainly few women, but they do exist. It's tiring when you've experienced this first hand to keep reading that it surely can't be possible.

It is possible, it does happen, some women are horrible people who do not put their children first.

Does op know all the facts? No. But can this happen and does it? Absolutely.

Are you in the military then OP?

It's funny how when the story is from a man's side, MN assumes the ' you've only got one side of the issue' yarn.
As someone who spent over 20 years in a primary school , the mum's side was the only side that prevailed.

It's a desperately disproportionate view of family life.

Potentially if he’s not been in her life much the 11 year old isn’t that bothered about spending a lot of time with him? Children need regular and consistent access and he’ll have to find a way to provide that. At 11 the child would be involved in the contact discussions and I’m not sure whether a child that old with a strong relationship with the parent would really be swayed that much.
I don’t think the courts are particularly biased and I think they’re well aware of parental alienation as well as unseen abuse

My experience is the opposite too - the family courts frequently side with an abusive man - and often they are just a tool for that man to continue his abuse.

I would take what your colleague is saying with a grain of salt.

Courts side with mothers generally and with the person who opens the case at the courts rightly or wrongly.

Fwiw my friend was abused horrifically by her ex and he would sing the same tune to anyone who would listen.

lewertlaw.com/fact-or-myth-courts-favor-the-mother-in-a-child-custody-case/

YABU

A friend had a bf who was devastated by his ex refusing to let him see his son unsupervised, he told her about all the wonderful things he did with the child, how close they were etc, what a psycho the ex was.
Once the honeymoon period of the relationship was over she learnt that he’d taken cocaine in front of his child, had lost his job, was abusive to the ex, so of course he shouldn’t have had more than supervised access.

I’ve seen too many cases where men’s behaviour is ignored in family courts, abuse going on for years because the father has spun a line about what a bitch his ex is.
I’ve seen enough to tend to believe women first tbh.

I do think you're siding with him about everything
If she's on UC and below a certain threshold then her children will qualify for pp. This gets them free school uniform, shoes and schools make other things available. So a grant from the hardship fund isn't about her doing something wrong.
Paying the mortgage and cms is generous but it doesn't mean she is living in the lap of luxury

A colleague? This isn't any of your business, never mind something to post about online.

Potentially if he’s not been in her life much the 11 year old isn’t that bothered about spending a lot of time with him? Children need regular and consistent access and he’ll have to find a way to provide that. At 11 the child would be involved in the contact discussions and I’m not sure whether a child that old with a strong relationship with the parent would really be swayed that much.

That’s a really good point.

This isn’t a young child. This is a child who is old enough to know what kind of relationship they want or want to continue with their father. Dad is in the military and has likely been away most of her life. He should be able to have a relationship but he can’t dictate what that looks like. His daughter didn’t choose to have a father that’s in the military and that works away for a certain length of time. Imagine what it’s like for her and likely having friends who have their fathers close by or living with them and being able to have them physically there vs talking on the phone or a screen.

‘He is happy for his DD to live with his ex as he's in the military and works away a lot’