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?

@LuaDipa

When I read stories about children being turned against their df’s I think of my own experience. Dh and my own df were excellent parents. There is not a thing I could say that would turn my kids against their df because they know what he is like. That makes me think that if it’s so easy to alienate a child the parent can’t have been a very good one in the first place.

Also I think what you mean is you couldn't say a true thing about your dh to alienate your child against him. There are these things called lies.. it may have escaped your notice but it's very easy to tell them.

What makes you think your colleague is telling nothing but the truth? There's always two sides to each story. Courts don't take side, they are neutral with the interests of the child mind

Courts don't take side, they are neutral with the interests of the child mind

LOL I wish that were true.

And as someone who's gone through the family court, you don't need proof, the courts will decide who is more reliable. Its decided on the balance of probability

Domestic abuse is not always "clear cut" as you put it. I spent many years with an abusive man and i went out my way to keep it hidden!

@MissMaple82

And as someone who's gone through the family court, you don't need proof, the courts will decide who is more reliable. Its decided on the balance of probability

They are interested if you have proof of abuse, or unreasonableness or parental alienation. Why wouldn't they be?

IME half the time in family Court the judges don't even read half the evidence.

That's from many years of accompanying (mainly female) abuse victims to family Court. But also the odd man.

@Tonsellectomjy

IME half the time in family Court the judges don't even read half the evidence.

That's from many years of accompanying (mainly female) abuse victims to family Court. But also the odd man.

It is still worth submitting it just in case.

If they aren't looking at the evidence what exactly are they judging on. Family court is absolute shite at the best of times.

@AdamRyan Thank you!!!

If this thread wasn't about gaslighting us then... why not criticise a bad judge instead of tarring the entire system?

This is how the right wing Mens Rights movement began in the US with incels etc whinning about their victimhood until the courts got so corrupt children are routinely returned to abusive fathers for PUNISHMENT the minute women report domestic abuse !!!!

We best be careful what we import from the US into the UK... and everyone should beware the Incels.

www.theguardian.com/law/2020/mar/11/bias-against-mothers-in-family-courts-puts-children-at-risk

[quote testerwiki]@AdamRyan Thank you!!!

If this thread wasn't about gaslighting us then... why not criticise a bad judge instead of tarring the entire system?

This is how the right wing Mens Rights movement began in the US with incels etc whinning about their victimhood until the courts got so corrupt children are routinely returned to abusive fathers for PUNISHMENT the minute women report domestic abuse !!!!

We best be careful what we import from the US into the UK... and everyone should beware the Incels.

www.theguardian.com/law/2020/mar/11/bias-against-mothers-in-family-courts-puts-children-at-risk[/quote]
You're saying op is an incel? or are you saying men can't complain about the courts without being an incel?

This is how the right wing Men's Rights movement began in the US with incels etc whnning about their victimhood until the courts got so corrupt children are routinely returned to abusive fathers for PUNISHMENT the minute women report domestic abuse!!!!

Do you have examples of this routinely happening? I work in a field where I see lots of single parents, and it's extremely rare for the single parent to be a father. I'm skeptical that this happens as routine.

It is an MRA trope that family courts are biased to women. Its not true but it sounds plausible

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.

I disagree with this.

My friend (mother) has mountains of evidence of parental alienation but the courts just aren't interested. It's absolutely staggering. From professional experience, a solicitor/barrister is listened to more than someone representing themselves. She remortgaged her home to get decent representation and it made no different. RP (Dad) can seemingly say and do what he likes with no repercussions. He's said she's an alcoholic (she's proven that she's not), that she shot him (she's proved this didn't happen)... Whatever else he says is trusted as gospel. If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes I wouldn't believe it. He's blatantly alienating the children from their mother, with the full knowledge of the court.

YANBU to think courts side with women. Generally the starting point is the mother will be favoured unless there is proof that she is dishonest or incapable.

If everything is even between the mother and the father, it goes the mother's way.

You're not wrong but I suppose it's because in the past it was always down to the woman to be the care giver and the man the "provider". Things have changed a lot in the last few years but the Courts haven't caught up yet imo

Generally the starting point is the mother will be favoured unless there is proof that she is dishonest or incapable.
Not true. The starting point is what's nest for the children. If one parent has been providing most of the care, it's least disruptive for that to continue. More often that's the mother.

I think only people with experience can truly comment, and as someone with a fair bit of.personal experience, it certainly isn't the case. Children are granted contact with abusive men when women know the potential harm of this, and the courts allow men to continue to abuse mothers through the legal process. This happens daily.

@AdamRyan

Generally the starting point is the mother will be favoured unless there is proof that she is dishonest or incapable. Not true. The starting point is what's nest for the children. If one parent has been providing most of the care, it's least disruptive for that to continue. More often that's the mother.

A lot of that is because of the society we live in. Dp for instance got denied his flexible working request, where women in his company doing the same job routinely had it approved. He would have loved to have his child more, however his ex didn't allow it (until she kicked him out) and the access she did let him have was dictated by her to be weeknights only plus 9am until 9pm on a Sunday. Wholly inappropriate for the needs of the child but it never went to court as dp was advised this was more than EOW and he wouldn't get more. He went for flexible working to enable him to see his child when his ex would allow, unfortunately his workplace didn't give a shit.

@FrodoAteMyRing

You only know his side.

Funny how that never stops the endless LTB posts.

@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, same applies for most aspects of life.

A lot of that is because of the society we live in. Dp for instance got denied his flexible working request, where women in his company doing the same job routinely had it approved.
In that case they were breaking equality law and he should take them to court over it.
Or look for another more flexible employer that would allow him time to care for his child.
Society is not set up to favour women.

I think you don’t have the whole story and never will have. And in my experience the courts sided with my ex and just ignored any evidence of his abuse.

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

Is she in the UK? If so, schools really don't do that. If a family is suffering from financial hardship they would generally signpost them towards the relevant agencies for emergency help but they don't fundraise for families.

And if he's not telling you the truth about that, I'd be wondering what else he's lying about.

@AdamRyan

A lot of that is because of the society we live in. Dp for instance got denied his flexible working request, where women in his company doing the same job routinely had it approved. In that case they were breaking equality law and he should take them to court over it. Or look for another more flexible employer that would allow him time to care for his child. Society is not set up to favour women.

Yes, because we all have endless time and money to take big companies to court, as well as the mother of our child, don't we?

I never said society is set up to favour women, did I? It isn't. It's set up to see women as the main caregiver and men as the main earner.

He did look for a more flexible employer, and found one, but that's not the fucking point is it? No, it's not.

What a totally ignorant post.

Its what women have to do all the time. Women get "managed out" when they have kids. They don't get the same opportunities as male colleagues. They choose whether to sue their employers, leave or suck it up.
So I'm not particularly sorry for your dp