Jack Straw announces major changes to Family Courts

[onebatmother]

Blood and thunder, this is serious

mediation isn't done where there is reported documented violence.

We know that most dv goes unreported. Therefore, mediation will take place where there has been violence.

And violence is NOT the only incidence where mediation is unsuitable. Where there has been emotional abuse and bullying, mediation is simply not appropriate. Someone as ground down as the woman I knows, doesn't need a mediator who will try to be fair to everyone, she needs a lawyer who will fight her corner.

lewisfan....i was also told of a security guard. my god,he was so ancient!! he could have done nothing. and he was so busy chatting to me trying to identify my accent that he forgot to even search my bag!

nobody ever asked for any documented dv from me,i just told them. thats never been necessary

Really? What if the guy denies it? Did your ex not try to deny it? (Or as is frequently the case, did his behaviour make it v. obvious that he was an abuser?)

court just kept saying "it's only alleged - no proof so we have to assume it didn't happen" even though his entire point of being there was to control me further (which proved to be correct when he told the judge he refused weekday contact AND weekend contact)

Interesting thread and I am not in favour of mediation where domestic abuse has been raised as an issue, evidence or no evidence. In other circumstances then I think it should be a first step.

I am appalled by Atlantis's comments to Nananina and have reported them ( just in case Mumsnet do take action, I want it known that it was me and noone else). I am offended that once again as a social worker I come on to a thread and see her nasty comments about us. I am very pleased to see that almost everyone else has focussed
on the real issue and made me think a little bit harder about it.

"I am appalled by Atlantis's comments to Nananina and have reported them "

Get a life wahwah.

So even if they do edit my posts, they have already been read by most people and the thread has already been copied onto another parenting site. Intact.

If NN doesn't want to be called a troll then she shouldn't troll should she.

No mistaken the social workers on these threads are there, same attitudes they use IRL.

Crikey, Atlantis, I hope you're a bit more level-headed and reasonable when you're MCKing than you are demonstrating here.

"Crikey, Atlantis, I hope you're a bit more level-headed and reasonable when you're MCKing than you are demonstrating here. "

Well I haven't lost a case yet snorbs, thanks for the concern.

Ah, so that's what's feeding your "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me deserves a pasting" style of debate. That explains a lot.

Thank you Dittany.

"Ah, so that's what's feeding your "I'm right and anybody who disagrees with me deserves a pasting" style of debate. That explains a lot. "

Err, no actually it's the 'social workers must post on mass on threads where they are criticised and attack posters to ruin the debates because social workers are always right' that causes me to get prickly.

Children have an absolute right to be protected from violence, abuse, aggression and neglect. That includes violence and abuse and the rest from a parent. Any system for determining contact that does not start from that principle is dangerous and morally reprehensible.

Hi wahwah -thanks for your support. I recall Atlantis from previous threads and remember how "knowing" she appears to be and this thread is no exception. It's a bit worrying that someone with her views and mode of expression (insults and unpleasant language) acts as a McK friend and as someone else says, it is hoped that she is able to conduct herself in a more reasonable manner than she does on these threads. And yes she would say she had "won every case" wouldn't she - yeah right.

I find it quite ironical that shes says "social workers attack posters to ruin the debate when they are criticised - sws are alwasy right aren't they............" This from someone who seeks to discredit and insult the entire range of professionals involved in the family courts and has a pop at the "idiot" politicians too.

I am still waiting incidentally for someone to explain what a TROLL is............Atlantis you say "I shouldn't troll" - please can you explain what a troll is and what they do?

trolls from wiki

Nina, may I ask from where this thread has gone, do you stick by your remarks that intimidation can't occur? I am not trying to pick on you, but just wondering if experiences from other MNers have highlighted some, lets say grey areas in the whole process that maybe you didn't know about? (I have no idea what your job is btw, incase that is a totally stupid question!)

"Atlantis you say "I shouldn't troll" - please can you explain what a troll is and what they do? "

Why don't you look on the community cares forum where they explain how to troll and 'stick up for social workers because your getting such bad press'.

I guess now that the ss has been shown to be useless again (re doncaster and the case report where they could have saved those two poor boys from being tortured ,not to mention all the other child abuse deaths there in the last year) you guys are out trolling in force.

Little clue re the populus- it's not working.

Atlantis, I have a life and it doesn't involve me thinking it's ok to treat people badly. I hope you get to that position at some point in yours.

Anyway, I don't want to distract from what has been an interesting debate and if you want to respond to my previous comments at that level, then that's fine, Atlantis.

Back to the OP, we were badly burned by mediation, and DH didn't even go. His ex acted ike a screaming harpie in court, the judge recommended that DH contact mediators as they couldn't make any progres in court due to her 'distress' the lies she told in court combined with other factors of her behaviour (denying contact and generally abusing him by text) meant that DH was unwilling to speak to her, her mother volunteered to act as a go-between until they could sort something else out.

Ex then refused mediation and went back to court and told the judge that the break-down in communication had happened, because DH now refused to speak to her, and this was because he'd offered mediation. i.e. he had decided only to speak to her in mediation whereas she didn't think it was required because they had managed to sort out dates, she won't discuss anything about SD with DH at all, only gives him a list of dates and times its convienient for her to allow SD to see DH.

Case closed because DH won't communicate with ex. Fantastic, so offering mediation went against DH....... hmmmm

My understanding of trolling is someone being deliberately inflammatory with the express desire to wind up or upset people.

That is, imo, entirely different from honestly holding a view which another poster vehemently disagrees with.

I know this is a very, very emotive topic but calling someone a troll because you don't like their point of view is deeply unfair.

I havent read all the posrs but i am a family lawyer and i think its an excellent idea to encourage mediation.

If you are entitled to legal aid then you have to go to mediation although there are exceptions - violence being one of them. I haev seen it work very well - if it doesnt work then its referred back to Solicitors who end up taking it to Court.

I get annoyed when i hear all this slagging of lawyers - saying they are dragging it out etc - it is often the parties themselves who want to argue about pathetic things - i have told parties many time sto pull themselves together but if they insist on arguing you have to follow their instructions.

Encouraging mediation for fee paying clients is also very good idea - it can lessen the burden on the Courts for the cases that really need the help.

It also makes parties sit down and agree the issues so if they go back to a Solicitor they can agree on x y and z but need some help to decide on a b c - it can help to focus the arguments.

Lawyers arent going to loose out because there will always be couples, vunverable people that need representation - it seems right that these have Court time

Having spent much of my working life in the family courts (as a lawyer) I do think that there are some cases where getting the parents down to sit and talk must be perferable to slugging it out.
And I speak as someone who enjoys slugging it out.

Unfortunatley, the current mediation sustem isn't great. Clients on legal aid are forced into it ( though you can get out of it in cases where there has been DV) and I question the efficacy of anything that is forced.
I'd be interested to see how many cases are actually rsolved this way.And how much money is saved.

Yes, I struggle to understand how forcing anyone into mediation would work at all - it's against the very concept of mediation which has to involve two willing parties.

"I know this is a very, very emotive topic but calling someone a troll because you don't like their point of view is deeply unfair."

I didn't call her a troll because I didn't like her point of view I called her a troll because the only time she appears is when there is a discussion which involves the ss and she personally attacks posters, myself and others constantly. That is trolling.
Her and her followers then complain to mn about posts and posters because they don't like our point of view.

Back to the discussion;

"I'd be interested to see how many cases are actually rsolved this way."

there was a report done a while ago ( can't find it right now) that showed many cases are sorted out at court mediation (the one before the actual case starts) but all that showed was that the people who agreed contact then were either too brow beaten to continue (probably because they were told of the presumption of contact) or were not that gung-ho to start with.

The cases that actually get into court are usually the entrentched ones where no amount of mediation is going to resolve this.

Yes but JohnHemming only ever turns up on SS threads too, is he trolling?

"Yes but JohnHemming only ever turns up on SS threads too, is he trolling? "

By definition yes. If someone wants to call him a troll (which I think has been hinted at on another thread so be it).

The difference is I would imagine is he doesn't attack posters, he doesn't chase someone around slagging them off and then get his merry band of followers (if he has any) to moan and whine about them (at least I haven't seen this), he doesn't stiffle the debate by attacking the person and not discussing the problem in order to wind posters up and go off topic.