mother denied access to her children -times article

[troublednamechange]

Times article today link

This article really troubles and confuses me. I find it distressing that any parent (father or mother) is not allowed access to their children following divorce/separation in any but the most severe cases. that said part of me was pleased that the courts had come down against the mother for speaking out againts the father (if that is the case). As someone who didn't see her father from being a toddler onwards largely as a result of my mothers hostility , I do feel that the impact of all of losing a father is ignored and underestimated all too frequently. That said these children have lost their mother which is equally damaging.

The tone of the reporting was a bit odd too (how is it relevant that this woman's ex husband was a financier unless its implying something about their relative abilities to avoid proper advice).
I have namechanged as I am a regular /

yep that does seem odd - although did imply in article that there were supervised visits/access

but why have you name-changed?

I suspect we have no idea what the full story actually is.

Yes, does seem a bit odd and disturbing. It's not as if she was abusing the kids. Just smothering them a bit too much. Hmmm, I need to read more about this. The article is a rather oddly written.

because my mother knows my normal mumsnet id and the whole topic is a bit of a powder keg -another thread entirely.

ah.

I thought it odd, and then I noticed that the visits were already supervise, which in general is only done if there is a significant issue and it is felt that an unsupervised visit is not safe for the children in some way (perhaps because of a risk of abduction, or violence or inappropriate behaviour). three years does seem like a long time though. Poor children, whatever the circumstances.

Hopefully there is a lot more to this story than what has been reported. How can this be int eh best interests of the DCs otherewise?

What the article doesn't actually mention is whether the children's allegations were investigated...

The father is a financier in the city, therefore has probably the best representation. And the mother probably doesn't

"I don't understand why family court dealings can't be made anonymous and published in full. "

Well, theoretically, that's now the idea. I imagine the case has been muddied by the fact that the mother made an online diary. The fact is that court reporting of family proceedings is still in its infancy - virtually newborn - and so judges etc are still feeling their way. And their instinct - judging by the experiences of people who've covered family cases so far - is to restrict a lot.

But even so, I think it's positive that there's some external scrutiny of family court proceedings. It will give a clearer reflection of what's actually going on.

On the "rich city financier" thing - I suspect (although I know nothing about this case) that the journalist wouldn't have put it in unless he felt it was important - so if you leave the article thinking the father got a bloody good, expensive lawyer, I suspect that's exactly what you're meant to think.

I think the significant thing is the "unfounded allegations" against the father.
if true, that IS significant and wrong, and te father and children need to be protected from that type of behaviour

God save us from misogynist psychiatrists and their pet theories. Harmed them by being always available my arse! It's not so long ago the medical profession was blaming autism on bad mothering...

And condemning her for approaching her own children in the street is just ridiculous. Any mother or father who loved their children would be distraught in these circumstances and be desperate to tell the child that they are loved, despite what the authorities might be telling them.

Who knows, it's possible the woman is a complete loon, but 'always available' smacks of power-hungry officialdom.

but how was she coaching the children to make unfounded allegations during supervised visits, exactly?

Just don't understand how that would be possible.

Hmm. I think it has been written from a particular perspective, and that's why "rich city financier" has been prominently mentioned. It's not likely to excite sympathy for him in the reader.

Leningrad - You're right re: later discovered to be unfounded.

I have worked with vulnerable children and during supervised visits, the conversations aren't monitored.

The reason I think that quality of representation is an issue is not just from the mention of the father being a financier, but also that the woman is portrayed as a raving lunatic. I've seen some really horrific cases where there is still supervised access, and seems that this woman's behavior is simply what anyone mother would do if she wasn't able to be in contact with her children...

Is this a spoof? It just does not make sense at all.

I was hoping some MNer somewhere might have the inside info on this - as has been pointed out, the story just smells weird and fishy.

I think that you would have to know a lot more about it before you could have an opinion.
It is quite a good message if it shows parents that whatever animosity they have towards each other they have to get on for the sake of the DCs and that poisoning a mind of a DC against the other parent is not allowed.

I read it that the mother was causing serious emotional damage by her behaviour and actions towards the children. Part of the problem was she had attended parenting courses but still was completely unable to control the children.
They did give her plenty of chances but she was for what ever reason unable to stick to the conditions given to her.

I think PND was a big factor.

Very sad day when a mother is unable to see her own children.