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 /

?serious concern about [the mother] infantilising the children, encouraging them to make complaints about the father and encouraging them to want to take an inappropriate part in these proceedings?.

of course we can't know what this entails

but if she was trying to make them imagine that they were the victims of abuse by the father when they weren't, then that would certainly be emotional abuse on her part and a good reason to keep them away from her

infantilising could be anything; doesn't have to be just attachment parenting; if her parenting was very age inappropriate and she refused to change after parenting courses, again that could be seen as a bit of a risk to them

Obviously we don;t know all the facts but this article really upset and disturbed me.

Having worked in family law before, it struck me that the father sounded like a rich bully, able to hire the best lawyers and "buy" the required psychiatric reports which judges take far too much notice of. When I worked as a lawyer, we were able to hire experts who would basically say what we wanted because we were paying them. If a report has the word "expert" at the top most judges will go along with it, but imo most psychiatric work is a grey area and not always reliable.

The mother sounds a bit fragile with a history of alcohol issues and PND but whose to say this wasn't caused partly by a control freak bully of a husband? I cannot believe that a female judge has made an Order for no contact at all for 3 years which will destroy forever this mother's abililty to have a normal relationship with her own children while a nanny brings them up.

I don't know enough about the case to comment really but will say i can totally see how a judge has had to make this decision.

My ex sounds just like this mother. It is incredibly damaging to a child to have one parent constantly critising the other, be it parenting methods from day to day or entirely fabricating events.

Children are left reeling and not knowing what to believe.

It is sad but having been sat in the family courts for almost 10 years i am fully aware that they do not make these decisions lightly.

I just hope that this woman gets some decent legal representation at her next hearing, and some sensible "expert" reports that focus on the damage that will be caused to these children by depriving them completely of their mother. Perhaps another look is needed at the father;s mental state.

We focus on injustices abroad like Marnie Pearce, meanwhile these types of draconian Orders are being made by our own courts. Likewise babies and toddlers are being battered to death and raped whilst the courts and social services are focusing their attention and resources on more interesting middle class "emotional abuse" cases (of dubious origin and intervention often likely to in fact cause more emotional harm).

I hope people like John Hemming or Camilla Cavendish are aware of this case.

I doubt if a father perpetrating emotional abuse would be denied access tbh.

Ah the secrecy of the family courts. We'll never really know the bare facts of this case, will we? I know there is supposed to be a loosening of restrictions, but from this article it looks very much like you still can't say enough to make any case comprehensible.

I'm glad this story was in the MN news roundup. It still leaves me cold.