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?

@Bluelightlover

Thank you for the replies so far.

The first 'fact finding' hearing is imminent. He is happy for his DD to live with his ex as he's in the military and works away a lot. He just wants a relationship with her on some level. When he's home to be able to spend time with her and with his family who live around the corner.

There will be one finding of fact These are only convened when abuse is alleged and the decisions over this are in regard to child welfare /contact

You seem over invested to be frank

@Getyourarseofffthequattro. How about getting a job that means he can be around for his child and then going for at least 50/50 care?

He's been content up until now to let his ex do the legwork in raising their child so she can't have been doing that bad a job at it.

@Upyouranty

I no longer work in the family courts because I couldn’t stand the way women were treated. It was appalling. So- no , I don’t agree with you.

Thank you for posting this. You've just made me feel less alone.

My ex H dragged me through court. There was DV on his part towards he, he physically assaults our children and made me out to be evil. I was treated appallingly and will never trust the courts again (ironic as I work in the CJS).
But I see posts like the OPs and wonder if it was me, if I did something wrong.

Your post makes me think possibly I didn't.

[quote ChocolateMassacre]@Getyourarseofffthequattro. How about getting a job that means he can be around for his child and then going for at least 50/50 care?

He's been content up until now to let his ex do the legwork in raising their child so she can't have been doing that bad a job at it.[/quote]
Well yes, that would be ideal but If it's going to court it's unlikely he'll get 50/50 custody. Presumably reduced child maintenance wouldn't go down well either.

I'm not suggesting she's done a bad job of looking after the child. I'm suggesting keeping a child from their other parent is probably not the right course of action.

@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.

This - exactly this

Family courts side prioritise unsuitable parents (both mums and dads) over the welfare of children too often.

If you've been here any length of time then you should be embarrassed about repeating that myth. So many sad stories of screaming kids forced to see abusive or negligent parents because the resident parent doesn't want to go against the Child Arrangement Order

What kind of school does fund raisers for poor families ? Never mind give £5k just to one family on their say so?

She went as far to get the school to fund raise for her when my colleague had sent her £5k.” Yup. That definitely happened.

I think OP maybe being a bit gullible.

New gf - Why don’t you see your son?
Man (who doesn’t make any effort/have been abusive) - because the courts always side with the mother.

@WonderfulYou

She went as far to get the school to fund raise for her when my colleague had sent her £5k.” Yup. That definitely happened.

I think OP maybe being a bit gullible.

New gf - Why don’t you see your son?
Man (who doesn’t make any effort/have been abusive) - because the courts always side with the mother.

Or because she has actually stopped him seeing the child. Which again, does happen.

It's difficult to take someone seriously as a parent who is happy for his apparently abusive ex-wife to have primary care of their daughter in order to facilitate his career.

@cherryonthecakes

Family courts side prioritise unsuitable parents (both mums and dads) over the welfare of children too often.

If you've been here any length of time then you should be embarrassed about repeating that myth. So many sad stories of screaming kids forced to see abusive or negligent parents because the resident parent doesn't want to go against the Child Arrangement Order

What kind of school does fund raisers for poor families ? Never mind give £5k just to one family on their say so?

This!

But when NRPs decide they don’t want contact or just don’t turn up nothing is done “ They can’t be forced to stick to court order” But if the RP stops the contact because it’s upsetting the kids and it’s not in their best interests then they are in the wrong in the eyes of the courts!
Courts don’t always side with the RP or fully do what best for the children Imo

I think if you think the court is going to overlook the hard proof of him paying the mortgage and maintenance, plus (I assume) his attempts to talk to his daughter, then you are naive. I also don't really get the 'has made it difficult to see his daughter' combined with the 'in the military and often works away' - sounds like a lot is being omitted from what you're being told. Maybe mum doesn't like having to cancel her weekend with her daughter because dad is unexpectedly back in the country for a day? Of course I could be totally wrong. But you don't seem to want to entertain the fact that you might not be privy to all the information.

And I'm not sure why just because you're so invested in this 'friend's' situation it naturally means the courts ALWAYS side with the women? Surely it's pretty well known by now that when men actually want something in family court they get it? It's just that most of the time they don't bother.

Or because she has actually stopped him seeing the child. Which again, does happen.

Of course it does but it’s very doubtful in this situation where he’s told OP he’s given her £5K and the school had a fundraiser for her - no school would do this.

In my (professional and personal) experience, the family court side with the current resident parent. Be that mum or dad.

I've had one recently where the resident parent has lied constantly, there is proof of their lies. Everything else they say is treated as gospel.

@Getyourarseofffthequattro. Schools do not fundraise for parents. That just does not happen. So it’s reasonable to think that if her colleague has misled her about that, then he has misled her about other aspects of the situation. The alternative is that she has wildly misinterpreted the pupil premium funding system- but is unlikely to have done so without hearing a rather skewed version of it from her colleague.

I would say the opp6. It is supposed to be in the best interest of the child.

An abusive partner has never put the needs of the child first

@WonderfulYou

Or because she has actually stopped him seeing the child. Which again, does happen.

Of course it does but it’s very doubtful in this situation where he’s told OP he’s given her £5K and the school had a fundraiser for her - no school would do this.

Well yes, I'd be questioning that certainly, but not necessarily that he's been stopped from seeing his child. It's not that unusual really.

OP you clearly haven’t read one of the thousands of threads on here about contact being given to men guilty of the most horrendous abuse. The courts definitely do not side with women. They promote contact at any cost.

But when NRPs decide they don’t want contact or just don’t turn up nothing is done “ They can’t be forced to stick to court order” But if the RP stops the contact because it’s upsetting the kids and it’s not in their best interests then they are in the wrong in the eyes of the courts!

That's because it's obvious that forcing a child to be in the care of a parent who doesn't want to see them is highly unlikely to be in the child's best interest. Whereas making sure contact isn't stopped for a child whose parent does want to see them is more likely to be in the child's best interest. That's not to say that there won't be arsehole NRPs who mess around with contact which isn't going to be good for the DCs either, but what can you do? It would be all too easy for a RP to make contact as awkward as possible then claim the NRP couldn't be arsed.

I disagree they're on the side of the mother or on the side of the father for that matter.

I've been through the family court. My Ex was abusive and I had lots of evidence of it and also had Social Workers and doctors stand up in court to vouch for it.

ExH still got unsupervised contact (after a 6 month period of supervised), but actually it's not that bad. And DD likes going so I can't complain.

The courts do not like parent alienation at all, ExH tried to accuse me of it several times and the judges asked for evidence and investigated it. So if he's got proof he would be able to see his DD.

My Mum and Dad went to court over me and my siblings - my Dad won and got custody of all of us, so that isn't my personal experience.

Child contact and financial issues aren't linked. Non Resident Parents who don't pay still get contact and vice versa because money (or lack of) obviously doesn't bear any influence on whether or not a non resident parent should have contact.

11 is quickly approaching the age where a judge would allow the daughter to decide how often she saw each parent.

@MyCatHatesEverybody

But when NRPs decide they don’t want contact or just don’t turn up nothing is done “ They can’t be forced to stick to court order” But if the RP stops the contact because it’s upsetting the kids and it’s not in their best interests then they are in the wrong in the eyes of the courts!

That's because it's obvious that forcing a child to be in the care of a parent who doesn't want to see them is highly unlikely to be in the child's best interest. Whereas making sure contact isn't stopped for a child whose parent does want to see them is more likely to be in the child's best interest. That's not to say that there won't be arsehole NRPs who mess around with contact which isn't going to be good for the DCs either, but what can you do? It would be all too easy for a RP to make contact as awkward as possible then claim the NRP couldn't be arsed.

I hear what your saying but don’t completely agree “”making sure contact isn’t stopped” to see a parent isn’t always in their best interest especially if they are being forced to kicking and screaming like the pp I was replying to. Like pp have said some abusers have been given unsupervised contact with their children(children that don’t want to see them for obvious reasons) and they are“ forced to” because of a court order. Like I said courts don’t always do what’s best for the children. The whole system needs changed imo

@ChocolateMassacre

It's difficult to take someone seriously as a parent who is happy for his apparently abusive ex-wife to have primary care of their daughter in order to facilitate his career.

ABSOLUTELY THIS ^^

I'm a great parent when he doesn't "have time" when his social life is busy when his girlfriend is new but then she starts asking questions like why don't you see your kids? he gets all offended and screams down the phone threatening court demanding to see them only to not show up or have a "migraine" but it's all my fault I'm abusive apparently it's not safe for the kids here he spoke to a social worker said three years ago I dragged my son across the floor she said the fact that it was three years ago and you sent your child back and said nothing and did nothing says more about you than her

And he is still blaming me

In my experience that’s not the case as all, cafcass will push for unsupervised access with the father regardless of what he is like.