Jack Straw announces major changes to Family Courts

[onebatmother]

Blood and thunder, this is serious

I don't think mediation is a terrible thing at all. On the contrary, I think it should be more widely and more competently used. Unlike the government and some simplistic people though, I don't think it's a panacea and I don't think it's appropriate for all cases.

"Atlantis, she wouldn't have been able to act alone. If it wasn't part of Labour's policy for whatever reason to change the Family Courts, Harman would have been stuck."

Ok, i'll agree with you there, towing the party line is something which ilks me, thumb screws from the chief whip isn't a nice experience, but she could have chipped away, there are/ were enough women in the Labour party, i'm sure Diane Abbott would have helped.

Just out of interest - can someone explain what this TROLL thing means please. "Isn't it funny how troll names only come up on these posts. I wonder what she posts as at other times - how like the SS to go sneaking around" - I don't understand the concept of a Troll. I only ever post in the same name but am just curious about this troll thing.

Don't worry Atlantis I am off now. I have no desire to engage with you any further.

"And seriously why have you focused on her when this is Jack Straw's policy announcement? "

Actually I didn't, I mentioned all of those I could remember , falconer, straw and Harman who said they would open the courts to accountability and scrutiny and lied, someone defended her and we ended up discussing only her .

"and Balls (their names don't inspire much confidence do they?) "

Like ronseal, it does what it says on the tin.

"Get rid of the presumption of contact for fathers because it's being abused by cafcass who claim it's for all fathers even the violent ones.
"

sorry but how can you suggest getting rid of the presumption of contact for fathers? That's appalling.
Surely it should be rebuttable presumption where ex-parte barring orders are available in the case of violent fathers until the case reaches trial, but to suggest that all fathers should start from the perspective of having to prove they are worthy to see their kids is akin to criminal defendants having to prove their innocence. The presumption should be that they are fit to see their kids unless their is evidence to the contrary.

"Can some of you posters who are determined to believe that mediation is a terrible thing and allows men to intimidate their ex wives/partners have any direct experience of this or is it just something that you suspect might happen"

I have experienced it. We were forced into mediation on the first day in court.

It lasted 3 minutes. He sat there, I walked in, he stood up and over me, bellowed that IWBU and walked out. I told the mediator that I had fully expected that outburst, he wasn't to be conversed with on any reasonable terms and I wouldn't stand for it. She told me it wasn't her place to pass judgement on his behaviour and we would have to try again.

2 hours later we went back into the court room where I refused to go through it all again. The barristers took over and conversations were through them (ie he said, we'll say, he did, we'll respond) - very stressful.

Especially as the abuse was only "alleged" because I hadn't pressed charges. Do they not know the stats on charges pressed or lack thereof in DV cases?

The whole thing needs looking at again, with consultations with actual people who have been through it - the easy cases and the prolofically difficult. They need a human base to this, not a parliamentary fairyland idea of what the courts are meant to do

Also, my experience of Cafcass helped my case no end (because my ex refused to see them or come to the meetings so they had to report back to the judge that he wouldn't co operate which I'd been telling the court room for 18 months!)

But they should be used from the start IME - my barrister had to fight for cafcass to be used about a year into the case when he'd once again not kept to the "agreement" that actually held no weight whatsoever in his complete disregard as to the "agreements" made....

which is another thing that needs changing

Either have "agreements" that can be used with power to dictate movements and behaviour or only have "court orders" but don't have cases of thousandds of "agreements" and no orders - they hold no weight on either side wrt absuing whatever was typed up. (for example, not turning up for contact - on either side - holds no weight on the next court date because it isn't a "court order" - so why make it in the first place?)

See.... the entire thing is a shambles.

We should move away from adversarial justice. It is not appropriate for family law.

"sorry but how can you suggest getting rid of the presumption of contact for fathers? That's appalling.
Surely it should be rebuttable presumption where ex-parte barring orders are available in the case of violent fathers until the case reaches trial, but to suggest that all fathers should start from the perspective of having to prove they are worthy to see their kids is akin to criminal defendants having to prove their innocence. The presumption should be that they are fit to see their kids unless their is evidence to the contrary. "

Firstly let me say I agree with you insofar as fathers who have done nothing wrong should not have to 'prove' they are 'worthy' of contact.

Now, let me explain.

When a mother who has suffered DV or the child has suffered DV walks into a solicitors they are told immediately there is a presumption of contact for fathers, that same mother walks into the court and is told the exact same thing by the judge, the mediator and or cafcass, to her, being an already downtrodden and abused woman she feels there is little hope in keeping the violent father at bay and agrees contact, not all, but a high percentage, if she doesn't agree this attitude is drummed into her for the life of the court case.

As we all are aware, the family courts are nothing like the criminal courts, unfortunately, where unless you get an exceptionally good judge (of which there are few) anyone can tell any amount of lies to anyone and when the lie is finally uncovered nothing is done about it.

So, do away with the presumption of contact that is a strong arm tactic in the wrong cases (it only tends to work on mothers who are fragile in the first place and not the ones who are deliberately out to spite their ex) and make use of the perjury law that exists ( and is very seldom used) anyone found to be lying ( mother being spiteful, father lying abour abuse, professionals being underhanded and lying on either side) that way many more parents will reconsider their lie before the case even starts.

I have no problem with fathers having contact, I have advised many fathers on how to achieve this, my problem is the law is now geared so that abusive parents are more likely to get contact and decent parents are more likely to end up with very little, sometimes nothing at all.

After that explanation, I wholeheartedly agree with you, atlantis

?Research shows that children adjust to family breakdown better when a couple maintain working relations following a separation.

WHAT IF

the last time your DD say their father it was as he was being put in the back of a police car after violently attacking their mummy and hearing him scream IM GOING TO F*CKING KILL YOU

great...this bodes really well... ffs I am really mad now.

Whos with me to lobby some form of protest to this? And try and reform the injustice that women face everyday in courts and by cafcass for fathers rights

Look, this is based on a green paper as far as I can see, which means there is plenty of time to amend.

If there's no suggestion of domestic violence / abuse - mediation may be the way forward.

But there's plenty of time to win the argument that in abuse cases, mediation is not appropriate.

No LTJ, there isn't. Because so much abuse is simply unrecognised, particularly emotional abuse.

I know someone who at this v. moment has just split up with her husband, who has spent years treating her as a skivvy, telling her she's lazy and that as he's the only one who works (she's a SAHM), she doesn't have the right to expect him to do anything in the house/ spend time with his children/ spend time with her/ tell her how much he earns/ where he's going on a Saturday night/ treat her with any respect whatsoever. Even her (middle-class, well-educated) mother told her that as he only hit her with a cushion (one of those great big sofa ones) and a towel, that doesn't count as abuse. She doesn't know she's been abused. Even without the towel/ sofa cushion incidents, this woman has been abused, but don't tell me that people who work in courts/ cafcass are intelligent enough to understand and recognise that, because I simply won't believe you - the weight of evidence, is that says most people, most of the time, even within the family courts, still have trouble recognising what feminists and intelligent people know is abuse.

Unrecognised and IGNORED unless you have a police case and press charges

WA stats are (slightly old now, but revelant seeing as I can't find new ones!)

? Children who live with domestic violence are at increased risk of
behavioural problems and emotional trauma, and mental health difficulties
in adult life. (Kolbo, et al., 1996; Morley and Mullender, 1994; Hester et al.,
2000)
? Nearly three quarters of children on the 'at risk' register live in households
where domestic violence occurs and 52% of child protection cases
involving domestic violence. (Department of Health, 2002; Farmer and
Owen, 1995).
? In 75% to 90% of incidents of domestic violence, children are in the same
or the next room. (Hughes, 1992; Abrahams, 1994).
? The link between child physical abuse and domestic violence is high, with
estimates ranging between 30% to 66% depending upon the study (Hester
et al, 2000; Edleson, 1999; Humphreys & Thiara, 2002).
? 70% of children living in UK refuges have been abused by their father.
(Bowker et al., 1998)
? A survey of 130 abused parents found that 76% of the 148 children
ordered by the courts to have contact with their estranged parent were
said to have been abused during visits: 10% were sexually abused; 15%
were physically assaulted; 26% were abducted or involved in an abduction
attempt: 36% were neglected during contact, and 62% suffered emotional
harm. Most of these children were under the age of 5 (Radford, Sayer &
AMICA, 1999.)
? Information received from local Family Court Welfare Services suggests
that domestic violence is present in almost 50% of cases, where a
welfare report is ordered. (Association of Chief Officers of Probation,
1999).
? In a survey of domestic violence service providers, Women?s Aid found
that 48% stated that adequate safety measures are not being taken to
ensure the safety of the child and the resident parent before, during and
after contact. (Saunders, 2001). Two years later, only 3% said they
believed that appropriate measures were now being taken to ensure
safety. (Saunders with Barron, 2003).
? Respondents to the same survey (May 2003) reported cases since April
2001 in which a total of 18 children were ordered to have contact with a
parent who had committed offences against children (Schedule 1
Domestic violence stats ? June 2007 KJH
4
offenders); 64 children were ordered to have contact with a parent whose
behaviour had previously caused that child to be put on the Child
Protection Register; and 21 of these children were ordered to have
unsupervised contact with the perpetrator. (Saunders with Barron 2003)
46% of respondents knew of cases where a violent parent had used
contact proceedings to track down his partner. (Saunders with Barron
2003).
? 29 children in 13 families were killed between 1994 and 2004 as a result
of contact arrangements in England and Wales, 10 of them since 2002. In
five of these families contact was ordered by the court. (Saunders, 2004)
? In the year 2001, there were 55,743 applications for contact orders under
the Children Act 1989. Of those, only 713 (1.3%) were refused. (Lord
Chancellor?s Department, 2002).

THAT all needs to change

It's shocking and sickening

mediation isnt attempted where there has been violence.

cafcass may try it in court,before you go before judge,but i was asked if i wanted to or not,i wasnt made to

but i went to mediation alone for first session and was told if violence occured,they dont attempt it

that may have changed recently then because I was made to even though he'd nearly blinded me when he punched me. I was told that there's a security guard in the building incase he got violent again!