Judge orders boy 11 to live with father he hates

[atlantis]

An appeal court judge has upheld the the order that a boy aged 11 should be removed from his mother, whom he is thriving with, and live with his father who he hates and has not seen for four years;

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245603/Judge-orders-boy-11-live-father-hates-seen-years.html

The rights of the child, including his human rights being clearly ignored.

This is becoming more common that fathers 'rights' are viewed as more important than a childs right to a happy, healthy family life and the best interests of the child are being ignored.

""The judge added that the mother?s arrangements for the boy to have extra-curricular activities every day of the week left no space for his father, adding: ?All of this strongly suggests that, in truth, the mother has no real wish to see contact restart.?" "

Or the mother is doing her level best to provide a good strong base for the child to grow up with providing him as much outside interests as possible and probably at the request of her son.

As for the judges opinion that the mother has no real interest to see contact restart, the boy has no interest to see contact start and the mother is abiding by her sons wishes as per her statement 'when he is ready'.

Forced contact never works, the child resents the parent more. So forcing the child to live with the father is a really spot on judgement.

" So forcing the child to live with the father is a really spot on judgement. "

That was sarcasm by the way.

I want to know where the father was for the first 6 years. Did he want contact but was frustrated, or was he on foreign placements/shacking up with new woman. It does make a difference....

That poor boy.

It seems that once again the best interests of the father are being placed above the best interests of the child and the child's human rights (and wishes) have once again been completely ignored by the secret family courts. The trauma this child has been given in being uprooted from his family home which he shared with his mother for 11 years to be forced to live with a father he barely knows will probably be with him forever. A child of 11 has his own mind and his wishes should have been listened to, even if they werent what the family courts and the father wanted to hear. I hope that children placed in these situations have the opportunity, either now or in the near future, of taking legal action against the system (and the 'loving' parent they have been forced to live with)and that they eventually get justice and some sort of recompense.

It does seem drastic to take such a step when the child is expressing a contrary wish. It doesn't change the fact that the judge had all the evidence before him while we do not. I do not know what is the truth of the matter but it is clear what the judge believes to be the case. Suggesting that it "has become a religion in the family courts that mothers are bad because they poison children's minds against fathers and fathers never do -they are blameless and have been wronged" seems just silly.

"Or the mother is doing her level best to provide a good strong base for the child to grow up with providing him as much outside interests as possible and probably at the request of her son."

Is it still so reasonable if you remember that this would be in defiance of court-ordered contact?

I'll ask the question again - if a court believes that a resident parent is deliberately making contact with the non-res parent difficult/impossible, what in your world should the court do?

"I'll ask the question again - if a court believes that a resident parent is deliberately making contact with the non-res parent difficult/impossible, what in your world should the court do? "

In this case nothing, the child should be considered Gillick competent, there is strong case law (I believe by J Wall himself (I could be wrong) ) that states that 'for whatever reason, the child is refusing contact it would be emotionally harmful to force it. (I will endeavour to find it but have moved and a lot is packed).

If it is emotionally harmful to force contact then what is removing him from the home he has grown up in for the last 11 years and forcing him to live with his father whom he wants no contact with.

People can quote PAS if they like but even Gardner has a 'get out clause' for PAS that says, 'you can not apply PAS to a situation where the parent by their own actions has caused the child to become alienated' these actions being, physical/ emotional abuse/ abandonment/ co habitation with a new partner/ a new family etc.

There should be a moral judgement in this case, is it ethical to destroy a child's life to suit either parents agenda, if the mother is truely guilty of PAS why does the child have to pay the price? It's the chicken and the egg, would the child be more damaged by the move or more damaged by having no contact with the father, as the child is said to be thrieving and the mother to have done a wonderful job raising him I would say the later.

11 is a bit young for Gillick competency. My DS is 11 and I don't let him make the final decision regarding contact as I don't think he's emotionally developed enough to see the bigger picture. Apparently the court saw this child in a similar light.

What you seem to be saying is that it's ok for a resident parent to continue to put obstacles in place of court-ordered contact and that where that happens the court should do (and I quote) "nothing".

While I appreciate Gardner's get-out clause for PAS I have yet to see any evidence in this particular case that it was the non-res parent's actions who caused the alienation.

My DS is 11 and my DD is 8. If I stopped them seeing their mum (she's an unreliable alcoholic; she misses a lot of contact when she's pissed which caused my DCs a lot of distress), would you back me on that? And would you expect a court to back me up?

"My DS is 11 and my DD is 8. If I stopped them seeing their mum (she's an unreliable alcoholic; she misses a lot of contact when she's pissed which caused my DCs a lot of distress), would you back me on that? And would you expect a court to back me up? "

If your asking me am I gender neutral, the answer is yes, I have helped two fathers gain residence and many fathers to get a decent level of contact.

If your asking me the spacifics of your case I would have to say again, it's what would be best for the children, I personally do not believe a parent coming and go as they please is a good emotional base for children, I personally don't believe being around an alcoholic is a good example for children, having said that I personally believe you would be the best judge of where your children are emotionally and if contact was right or wrong.

Would I personally go to court with you and argue your case, yes if I saw that contact was harming the children I would.

Should the court back you up on that, yes, again if it was harming the children.

I think in a case like yours the onus should be on the mother to clean up her act and make sure she attends all specified contact and in a reasonable state if she doesn't she doesn't have the childrens best interests at heart.

( Were you prehaps on a website called 'your rights' or the gov's website for parents (can't think what it was called?)

Forcing the child out of his home, away from his primary carer, and possibly away from his school and friends will be incredibly traumatic. This is a punishment inflicted on the child. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the adults, it is plainly wrong to make the child suffer. Bad enough when the parents do it, appalling that the courts should join in.

Atlantis, yet again you've carefully avoided the question - do you think it's ok for the resident parent to make the non-res parent's court-ordered contact difficult? And, if not, what is the court supposed to do about it?

(And, no, I've not been on any such websites.)

"Atlantis, yet again you've carefully avoided the question - do you think it's ok for the resident parent to make the non-res parent's court-ordered contact difficult? And, if not, what is the court supposed to do about it?"

Really I thought I had answered it.

Is it ok for a nrp to make CO contact difficult;

It depends on the case. If the nrp is an abuser yes it is. If the child is adament it doesn't want to go, yes it is. If the rp is doing it out of spite, no it's not.

What is the court supposed to do about it;

As i'm sure your aware there are many things the court can already do without flipping residence. It can attach a penal notice. It can arrange for a community activity for the rp to run during contact (with penal notice attached). It can arrange for counsilling for the rp to run during contact (with a penal notice attached). It can fine the rp. It can order the guardian/ cafcass officer to deliver the child to the nrp. It can arrange for family counsilling for the rp and child. etc, etc, etc.