Am I being unreasonable to think there is something seriously wrong with the family court system where an ordinary family has to go to these extremes to protect their own child

[millymog11]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67425080

Its almost as if the family court system is set up first and foremost to claw money back from ordinary people who do not qualify for legal aid (i.e. 99% of people) and second priority is to dodge some kind of expensive human rights esoteric question (the rights of a father/biological parent) above all other priorities. The rights of the children come way way down the pecking order.

This parent was convicted and was in prison for peodophilia.
But the innocent parent still has to pay out of their own money to protect their child.

I honestly cannot get my head around this. I know it is not equivalent but the courts must spend enormous amounts of money (rightly but that is not the point) in banning people from driving a car due to substance abuse but the barriers to blocking a dangerous adult from having contact with their own children seem ridiculous.

The family believe others could avoid similarly costly court cases if the law is changed to automatically suspend parental rights from paedophiles when they are sentenced, and only restore them if the offender applies to a family court.

Absolutely and the offender should bear the full costs of any proceedings.

It should be automatic that paedophiles are barred from any contact with all children including his own. Put the children first. He is an adult he chose to abuse children. How can it make sense that he is on the Sex Offenders Register and not allowed contact with children apart from his own? That is just utterly unbelievable.

As for the huge bill incurred by the mother to protect her child it is a disgrace the Government should refund all the money spent and in future those cases should be fully funded.

I am struggling not to swear about this.

If you have been on MN a while you will find cases with echoes of this but without the outcome.

To be honest, this has shocked me. I suppose I had never thought about the situation before so it's a bit of a shock to realise he still has any kind of parental rights after such a conviction? It makes zero sense.

Awful way to start the article though....

Outside a Cardiff courtroom, a smartly dressed young woman sits waiting, anxiously. Bethan has never been inside a family court before, but she is here to try to protect her child - whose father has been convicted of paedophile offences and is currently in jail.

Edit: the whole thing is so badly written with "too many" quotation marks

"I was just so grateful," she says.

A close family friend saw her dh jailed for abusing their dd for over a decade... He got access to their other 2 dc on release.. She vanished into a puff of smoke with all 3 dc.. We don't even know where they are... Fucking disgrace..

waitholdup I agree it is not the best journalism I have ever read (by a long chalk).
However I can well believe the type of people who find themselves in this situation (lets say women/mothers who find themselves in this situation although I concede it could be a father going to court regarding the mother of his children) have never ever had cause to darken the doors of any court anywhere for any reason (apart from jury service??)

Its so horrifying i almost want to flag this to every person about to have children with someone saying "these are the rights the parent of your child will have in these circumstances".

You are not telling me that this person knew or even had an inkling that the father of their child had these proclivities before their child was conceived.

I agree, apologies for derailing the thread - just so annoying that such an important subject was written about like it was being read out on GMTV

(My writing is not much better)

Anyone jailed for child sex abuse should NEVER be allowed to be alone with children

It's due to Article 8 of the Human Rights Act.

Both the child and the parent have a right to respect of their privacy and family life.

However as it is a qualified right it means parental responsibility isn't removed or limited by the state without a good reason. As there is no legislation covering this then the Court has to do it.

So while it is common sense to everyone that a parent who has been proven to abuse children by a criminal conviction shouldn't be allowed anywhere near their children until their children are adults, there is no legislation covering it.

You are not telling me that this person knew or even had an inkling that the father of their child had these proclivities before their child was conceived.

Child abusers are charmers as well as groomers.

They charm the people around them to trust them with children.

They charm and often groom the adults they form long-term relationships with.

They groom children.

She could have applied for a child arrangements order for £300 which would have achieved most of what she has achieved through this £30k application.
I make no comment on whether PR should automatically be removed for any particular reason but this is a bizarre course of action and a sensationalist article.

Are there any type of numbers on how likely a pedophile will be to abuse their own child? As in, if their original victim was someone outside the family? I'm guessing if data shows it doesnt often happen?

The presumption is always on contact with both parents as being in the best interests of the child, irrespective of whether either party is a fit and proper parent. The reality is it’s very hard to remove parental rights even for situations where DV has taken place.

Bobtheamazinggingerdog · Today 11:31

Are you sure about that?
I think you are wrong.

I think that the Family Court in the UK is entirely dysfunctional on all levels, most specifically when it comes to protecting children.
Protecting children falls to the emergency powers of social workers who ultimately take such children (most of whom would not be fortunate enough to have parents as determined or willing to lay their resources on the line) into care.

Its analogous to the first port of call for the NHS being A&E. But worse. And far slower. And the primary purpose of the Family Courts are political and dehumanising risk management (risk management of the state funding earmarked to Family Court that is).

What she applied for was most likely a CAO - the one that bars the father from a making any contact. £30K is not the cost of the application, it is the barrister / solicitor fees. And I might say this is actually quite on the light side when it comes to serious child matter proceedings. I have a friend who spent nearly double that in order to just be allowed to take her child back to her home country - as the biological father who has never had any involvement in the child's life and has seen the child ONCE (completely voluntarily) was objecting to that.

However as it is a qualified right it means parental responsibility isn't removed or limited by the state without a good reason. As there is no legislation covering this then the Court has to do it.

Being a paedophile is a damn good reason, being any kind of abuser is a damn good reason, there should be legislation it is ridiculous there is not.

zendeveloper · Today 11:41

I honestly think these facts including the costs should be compulsorily published on a routine basis by Family Courts and should be taught in schools to all pupils especially girls in secondary schools.

If you are going to get pregnant by someone who has any kind of characteristics which mean they are likely to "fight for their rights" especially once they get to or are in prison (all funded by the government) you ought to be warned what you are getting into before you get pregnant, if you simply hope to be able to keep your child safe and you have the right to care for them when the other parent does not want to care for them but wants to lever their rights via the system.

PR should be removed permanently for anyone convicted of child abuse offences.
And removed for a long time for anyone going to prison for violence.

The children don't need anything to do with those men, ever again ideally. But it's all about the men who claim they couldn't possibly bear to stop parenting their children.....

Based on this story alone I have no respect for the Family Court in the uk.

I am happy to report I have never had dealings with the Family Court on a personal level but I know people who have and I can well believe everything in this (admittedly badly written) BBC story.

Something needs to change.

In 2022 there was a petition to stop parents having automatic parental rights in cases where they had murdered the other parent. Although the petition got over 130,000 signatures, Parliament decided the family courts know best.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/614893

I didn’t see it in the article but what of the parents of the father? If they want contact with their grandchild still and mother is happy with that, won’t they just pass on info to their son which defeats the purpose of this?

Agree with you.

The children don't need anything to do with those men, ever again ideally. But it's all about the men who claim they couldn't possibly bear to stop parenting their children.....

They suddenly become 'Father of the Century' don't they? When in reality they are the worst excuses for fathers and always have been.

It would be interesting to see any statistics of how many women are forced to maintain and facilitate their child's contact with their abuser. "Abuser", as in actually sentenced for bodily harm, not just a mildly unpleasant person. I know at least two.

You are not telling me that this person knew or even had an inkling that the father of their child had these proclivities before their child was conceived.

Paedophiles don't only groom children; they groom parents and ALL the adults around that child. If you know someone who would go anything for a family and is wonderful with the child then look again.

For preference paedophiles make their own children and will work bloody long and hard to do so. And what woman doesn't want a hubby who's good with kids? They're really good with kids.

It's not on the woman to grab her crystal ball and are we forgetting that light hearted NHS survey that found out 48% of babies were accidents? We can all be mistsken as to a person's true nature but not all of us face heavy consequences.

Yes I am sure about that. A CAO can specify who the child can not have contact with. It allows the parent to take the child on holiday without consent of anyone else with PR and to make decisions about health and education likewise. Why do you think I'm wrong? Why are you talking about children being taken into care in relation to this case?

The article indicates she applied to have his PR removed.
There would have been no need to spend £30k on solicitors for a CAO application where the father was in prison for child sexual abuse. Any solicitor who billed her to that level for such an application would have been a con artist.