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.

We don't know from the article but she may have asked for more than what a CAO allows you.

Yes, she asked to have PR removed. It's in the article. That's why it cost so much I assume. I'm not sure why she felt she needed to do this when a CAO would have achieved the same outcome, that's my point. PR can be restricted via court order without being removed.

I have said you are unreasonable as I can’t see what the family courts have done wrong. She won her case. It’s not up to the family court to grant legal aid when the legislation does not permit it. Nor can the family court simply remove PR without an application being made. She chose to pay £30,000 but could have self repped, particularly as CAFCASS was completely on side. You can blame the government for legislation restricting legal aid etc, but not the family court in this instance

If the UK government put in such legislation they would end up being taken to the European Court of Human Rights particularly if it was one of the rare cases of wrongful conviction for violence.

I suspect that's why they haven't yet put in legislation that gives a blanket ban.

(Also there are parents who are in denial about the other parent's abuse of children, who wouldn't want the others parental responsibility removed. Ask any prison officer/person who has or does work with such offenders.)

She clearly decided the restriction wasn't enough as he was asking for updates on the child.

Verite1 · Today 12:11

So you blame the woman in the article for not representing herself instead of paying for a barrister and you state that the Family Court are not wrong in any way?

Wow.

I'm presuming that she went for removal of PR so there was no risk he could come back and try to vary any order made by the court. People like that will go to any lengths to abuse children and carry on emotionally abusing the mother.

I really don't get your point here at all
what do you think the family court did wrong?
legal aid isn't determined by the family court. That was the tories who took that away.
she made an application and it was granted. So what do you think is unfair here?

"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?"

I am not talking about children being taken into care in this case.
I am saying the way Family Court operates in the UK is to prioritise their own funds / funding by making ordinary people who want to protect their children from harm pay out of their own money, intimidate them with the notion of representing themselves when they cannot afford to pay for legal representation (and do not qualify for legal aid) and once they get to court prioritise the scholarly issues of human rights in the UK in 2023 and avoiding political pitfalls over any protection of an innocent child.

I've no doubt you are an expert on court procedure and process. But that is not enough to convince me that Family Court and its associated functions in the UK is not entirely dysfunctional when it comes to protecting innocent children.

"she made an application and it was granted. So what do you think is unfair here?"

(1) The article says she had never darkened the inside of a court before in her life
(2) The previous poster criticised her for not representing herself
(3) The previous poster intimated that if the woman in the article had paid £300 instead of £30K and represented herself she would have achieved the same outcome for £29,700 less of her own money. And presumably within a timeframe to protect her young child from being compelled to have contact with someone who had gone to prison for sexually abusing children.

1- so? What's that got to do with anything
2- no, she said she could have represented herself and not spent £30k. This is true.
3- surely that's the same point you made in 2?

I am saying the way Family Court operates in the UK is to prioritise their own funds / funding by making ordinary people who want to protect their children from harm pay out of their own money, intimidate them with the notion of representing themselves when they cannot afford to pay for legal representation (and do not qualify for legal aid) and once they get to court prioritise the scholarly issues of human rights in the UK in 2023 and avoiding political pitfalls over any protection of an innocent child.**

I am sorry you really don't understand the issues you're posting about.

With some of the scary decisions that family courts make I wonder if when a child is 18 they could sue that they were forced to continue contact with an abuser. It is claimed that CAOs are in the best interests of the child but you hear so many times it is contact by any means necessary and the child has to spend time with violent, emotionally or sexually abusive fathers.

Totally agree with this post.

I honestly think that in two decades time, the way the UK Family Courts have made decisions and all those in the family court process who make decisions and rulings on what is safe for innocent children - will face a barrage of litigation and claims by individual children who have been forced to spend time with and expose themselves to abuse by their parents (who have been convicted of a relevant crime).

Because UK Family Court say they had to in 2023.

I honestly think that in two decades time, the way the UK Family Courts have made decisions and all those in the family court process who make decisions and rulings on what is safe for innocent children

People who were children about a decade ago can start suing as the Family Courts in their present format started making decisions in April 2014.

I follow a couple of big name barristers on Twitter/X who specialise in appeals in these types of difficult cases where judgements have gone against the safe parent, usually the mother. I think anyone who’s has any dealing with Family court would tell you that some decisions really defy logic. And I think making family courts transparent and or open to public scrutiny whilst anonymising the parties involved can only be a good thing.

Well there was obviously a reason that the mother didn’t go for the cheaper option. From the details of the courts decision - He will be informed if his daughter is terminally ill, or if they have moved to a different country but not where they are - it sounds like a CAO wouldn’t have stopped the father having information about the child.

He hopes he can be reassessed when he's released and requests an annual report detailing how his daughter is doing.

The mother was looking for better protection for her DD than a CAO provides.

The Court does not monitor Child Arrangements Orders once the final order has been granted and therefore would not be aware of any breaches unless a formal application for enforcement is made. The Court will only make an Enforcement Order if it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has failed to comply with the order. The Court will not make an Enforcement Order if it is satisfied that the person had a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the Order

In asking the court to remove her ex-husband's parental rights and ban all contact - direct, indirect and through social media - until their daughter turns 18, the mother is trying to ensure that he can’t contact her DD because he has no information about where she is. Given the information about the level of risk he presents, that sounds like the only safe option for the child.

Thank you Queucumber · Today 13:10

This is a far more insightful and useful post than Bobtheamazinggingerdog · Today 12:35

Why do I suspect that UK Family courts up and down the land are choc-a-block full of people working there like Bobtheamazingging?

Why do all the other idiots pay for being represented in the family court, if the absolute restriction of parental rights is so easy to achieve as a litigant in person? Just apply, boom, granted!

Maybe, just maybe... because it is not as easy as just submitting an application to the court? A person who has never even been to the court would not even know who CAFCASS and their remit is, how to engage expert witnesses (which I understand were involved in this case). or even how to put together a court bundle the judge will actually be able to read!

If you are familiar with the system, you will certainly know that £30K is likely to be on the lower side for a case like this.

Well done that mother and her parents. It defies belief that men like this can gain access to their children and, as Queucumber has so clearly evidenced, ensures this child's long term safety from this predator.
I note that the Ministry of Justice have "no plans" to change the law which is not surprising. There's a seam of misogyny & anti safeguarding children that runs through the MoJ (and the CPS) that never seems to be challenged but can be seen in countless examples. I won't derail the thread by listing them - but it gives a context as to why the principle of parental rights / responsibilities being sacrosanct is often used by those who are happy to abandon them in different scenarios.

That little girl is lucky to have a such a tenacious Mum.

What a bizarre interpretation. I didn’t “blame” the woman at all. I simply said it wasn’t the fault of the family court as you were suggesting.

"That little girl is lucky to have a such a tenacious Mum"

So true.

Imagine if that little girl (insert the names of millions like her but from a completely different background/family) had had a mother who:

• did not have parents (the child's grandparents) who had funds or a willlingness to pay for this, nor any kind of job or financial means of her own
• had a mother who was working a subsistence job leaving her no time to pursue something like this
• had a mother who was easily intimidated / had suffered domestic violence/ had any kind of mental health issues
• had a mother who, knowing that the father of her child has all the time and resources at his finger tips in prison, realises her chances of battling the guiding principle that his PR status means he is going to fight "allowing him at least a say over his child's health, education and living arrangements" to its full extent
• had a mother who had been told casually in passing by a social worker "not to bother fighting him cause its not worth it" (I bet it happens every single day)
• had a mother who did not speak English let alone has any inkling of how UK family court works and has never heard of anything as basic as citizens advice bureau.

Sadly I bet there are millions of families in the UK where the mother would fall into one of the above categories.

And that is the protection for the child even before they get to court.

Exactly!

Don’t get me wrong. I think it was a travesty that legal aid was removed for most family issues (as well as in many other important areas). But as @Bobtheamazinggingerdog says - blame the Tories, not the courts!

Unpopular opinion coming: I think we need to be VERY careful what we wish for.

Automatically removing parental rights when mum killed dad to protect the children... not ok in my book.
Automatically removing parental rights when the state takes a dislike to someone and plants CSA images on their devices... not ok in my book.

Parental rights are an extremely complex situation and while the route to bring the question of them before the court should be cheaper and easier for concerned parents, I don't think having blanket laws is a good idea at all. It needs to be on a case-by-case basis.

It is a slippery slope and there is a very sinister undertone to all these sorts of proposed blanket laws removing children from parents.

They can often be applied in the opposite way to that which was intended.