I was in a family court final hearing yesterday. My daughter's father has made over 20 separate applications over the last five years. All different in nature, all featuring ludicrous allegations, unreasonable demands etc. My ex has never won any of his cases.
In the summing up before the decision, I was convinced the judge was going to side with ex as he was waxing lyrical about his parenting, how much he loves our daughter, made no reference to repeated vexatious allegations.
And then to my surprise, he didn't give him anything he asked for. In fact, the counter proposals I put forward were all accepted meaning it's gone even less in his favour than if he had just left the CAO as it was and not taken me to court. And then to my even greater shock, he barred him from making further applications for five years!
I'm intrigued at the way in which summing up works and judges decisions. Is it a tactic to just butter them up before you let them down so they don't feel like they've lost? Did the judges decision, even though they didn't refer to the history of the case, show that he understood even if he didn't refer to it explicitly?