Family court - what’s the point?

[NooNooMummy]

How would this go down? Next family court hearing/ CAFCASS meeting, I just say nothing. He lies, they listen. I point them to his DV, abuse,violence, lies and it’s ignored (Are they not allowed to consider the copies of emails/ text messages and the involvement of various agencies?) I give up.

@Skeptadad

DebbieHarrysCheekbones some of this bizzare radical feminist domestic abuse stuff makes zero to little sense.

You say parental alienation scarcely exists. However, it does exist when the person accusing it has accused it. In which case they are parentally alienating. In which case it happens a lot because it gets banded around so much. This doesn't make any logical sense.

A lot of this current thinking around domestic abuse is routed in ideology. It has no place in the courts where decisions are being made about childrens lives.

Where did I make it a feminist issue? You are projecting this due to your psycho ex.

A decent judge will see through this claptrap
Thank goodness long overdue legislation is being implemented to hopefully recognise and protect children from the family courts being a platform for abusive egomaniacs who trot this sort of horseshit out just to try and carry in punishing someone who was eventually brave enough to leave for them and the children’s sake

Furthermore I didn’t say parental alienation didn’t exist. I actually stated that it is the accuser alleging PA that’s in practice the person more likely to be perpetrating it. In that sense these people discredit and devalue the weight that should righty be attached to purposefully trying to destroy a child’s love for a mother or a father.
It’s not just serendipitous that these PA allegations mostly arise in cases where abuse is alleged…….

Good grief!!! The courts really do see thorough most of this! They look at evidence. Not assertions. The idea that one parent tries very hard to manipulate a child against another parent is absolutely not just seen in abuse cases. It’s often borne out of retribution.

@TizerorFizz

Good grief!!! The courts really do see thorough most of this! They look at evidence. Not assertions. The idea that one parent tries very hard to manipulate a child against another parent is absolutely not just seen in abuse cases. It’s often borne out of retribution.

Seeking Retribution is abusive behaviour

Hahaha, you are right DebbieHarrysCheekbones I am blinkered and my ex has heavily biased my position.

I am open minded though. I can see strategically why an abusive father would say my ex is withholding contact because of parental alienation when mum is actually trying to keep herself and her children safe. I can see why and how parental alienation can be used as a horrible and scary weapon by an abuser in such a manner. It absolutely happens and I am sure it happens almost all the time when you have an abusive father who is looking for a strategy and a weapon.

The problem is whilst parental alienation is used inappropriately by abusive men it also exists. So there needs to be a balancing act between keeping women and children safe from spurious claims of parental alienation and accepting that it happens in some cases. To say it phenomenologically doesn't exist could put some parents and children in precarious situations.

It can be the woman seeking retribution by ensuring DC never sees Dad! More often this as mum is resident parent and controls the child and spends more time with them.

Skeptadad = toxic male downplaying the manipulative, deliberate emotional and sometimes physical abuse of NRP (male). Why are you defending them?

Tigerfizz = another defender of toxic male behaviour. The family courts look at evidence? Not in my experience! That’s the problem

@NooNooMummy
Depends who is putting forward the evidence and how well the argument is constructed. If it’s very clear that one parent is ensuring the child doesn’t want to see a parent or is using circumstances to prevent contact, then advocates will present this to the court with evidence. I don’t see it as men vs women. Both can be equally as bad.

You only have your experience but it’s blindingly obvious this behaviour isn’t just about men. So maybe stand back and see the bigger picture?

NooNooMummy I am not defending a "them" I am saying each case should be assessed on it's individual merits. It's not black and white. You need to set the severity of the abuse against the negative impacts of having a parent removed from a child's life. Also you would need to consider all of the circumstantial factors and have an understanding of why the abuse took place, whether there was remorse and acceptance of responsibility amongst other important factors.

As I have mentioned before my ex is a known liar and manipulator but makes a wonderful mum. An unusual combination I grant you but this speaks to the complexity of individual cases.

Sleptadad - are you a lawyer? A judge? Why do you get to say how things should play out? That they should be allowed to mess about the child and RP?

If a parent is manipulative, abusive and irresponsible, that should be discounted? How on earth can that person be a ‘wonderful’ parent if they are deliberately abusing the RP and lying to the court? Your defence of this is shocking. I’m questioning why courts fail to address it too. Your acceptance of this just supports my assertion - family courts, what’s the point? I’m speaking as the RP dealing with an abusive, lying, manipulative NRP whose access to our child I have never sought to block but who seems to enjoy messing with our lives and dragging us through court on grounds so flimsy that he has to lie about his ‘concerns’ And he doesn’t want to see our child more. I suppose you support his right to do this

…and, of course, he tells everyone that I’ve blocked his access, alienated him from his child etc etc. But I have the emails and texts in which he refuses to make himself available to our daughter. But the court never seems to read them or, if it does, it just supports his claim that I’m alienating him from his child. So maybe I shouldn’t bother mentioning it anymore. Is that right. Oh. And. He says I’m a ‘wonderful’ mother. What’s the point of family courts if they don’t have the time or focus to get to the bottom of these things? And men like skeptadad jump on it for their own trolling, toxic entertainment

NooNooMummy - I am a fellow human being posting on a public forum and this allows me to have an opinion. I don't think it's appropriate to invalidate my opinions because you disagree with me and I don't think its appropriate to insult me because I disagree with you.

My gender has nothing to do with this.

I went through a similar mindspace to your own and my Solicitor told me my ex partners behaviour was the worst she had seen for 30 years so that will give you some insight into the difficulties I have had. Whilst her behaviour was poor it doesnt affect our child so there isnt a problem with the likely outcome of court (50/50 shared care).

Whilst your ex might be the biggest pain in the arse to you it doesnt mean they will be to your child. You likely need to reframe this from your childs perspective as that is all the courts will care about.

@Skeptadad

NooNooMummy - I am a fellow human being posting on a public forum and this allows me to have an opinion. I don't think it's appropriate to invalidate my opinions because you disagree with me and I don't think its appropriate to insult me because I disagree with you.

My gender has nothing to do with this.

I went through a similar mindspace to your own and my Solicitor told me my ex partners behaviour was the worst she had seen for 30 years so that will give you some insight into the difficulties I have had. Whilst her behaviour was poor it doesnt affect our child so there isnt a problem with the likely outcome of court (50/50 shared care).

Whilst your ex might be the biggest pain in the arse to you it doesnt mean they will be to your child. You likely need to reframe this from your childs perspective as that is all the courts will care about.

If your ex is this bad 50 50 is a shit outcome for your child

DebbieHarrysCheekbones, I agree. On paper it is night vs day but I suspect like the difficulties NooNooMummy is experiencing it's seen that it's best for daughter to have involvement with both parents. A few months a go social services were tattering on the edge of getting behind me for a change of residency but ex has started to behave.

However. My Solicitor does stand to gain by making my ex to be the enemy as she can charge £275.00 an hour playing sides. I will put my hand on my heart and say I don't know whether my ex is the worst or whether it's financial.

If you are seeing DD 50/50 do you really want to Rick the boat just now? I would wait until DD is older and see if she wants a change. Courts do listen to older children. If it’s just about working for DC right now, I might leave it but monitor the situation.

I think people get very polarised against women or against men. This reflects personal experience. However I don’t think 50:50 is a bad outcome for a child. They get to see both parents regularly. That is taking the side of the child. It’s not all out war against the child and their needs. That includes seeing both parents!

TizerorFizz you are absolutely correct! Family court can polarise and tribalizes people into mums vs dads, women vs men. I sadly fell into that trap and am trying to get out of it.

It's like I have taken a red pill and am trying to take a black pill back to how I was before as I don't like the kind of person I was becoming. I used to be a member of the Green party now have lost my old identity.

That's what I am going to do. I am happy with 50/50 as I can work and have full involvement with my young daughter. When I change her nappy I say "who loves your smelly bum" and she says "daddy loves my smelly bum". That's what I wanted as strange as it sounds. I think it's brilliant!

Sorry for typo! I obviously meant “rock the boat”.

Good luck with potty training.

Perfect demonstration of how the conversation gets derailed by wonderful, nappy-changing dads.

@NooNooMummy
That is probably demonstrating why you cannot agree and don’t get anywhere!

I agree with NooNOoMummy. Your thread has been taken over by people and Dads with their own agenda. It’s Making me feel really anxious just reading the tone of some of these comments. I know how you feel because my ex dp is abusive too. I also think the court don’t take time to read the evidence at many hearings. I’m still hoping they will take more time at the final hearing. Take care!

Agreed your thread was derailed slightly - apologies for my part in that.

Was a finding of fact ordered? Do you have a non-molestation order?

Involvement of agencies like Women's Aid won't mean very much. Everyone is signposted there and they can only provide hearsay evidence.

Classic gaslighting going on here.

@wombleflump good luck; sending you best wishes

…and what’s the point of fact-finding when there are wonderful, nappy-changing daddies at work. And WomensAid is, according to our online expert, just ‘hearsay’ - tell that to the women housed with their children in refuges.

…I had a WomensAid telephonist once pleading with me ‘Next time he might kill you!’ That would just count as hearsay apparently. (It does, I’ve had it ignored by judges and CAFCASS)

Sorry I was trying to get your thread back on track but you seem more interested in inferring I am a domestic abuser. I am quite knowledgeable about these things having having been through the process myself, taking an interest over a number of years in both domestic abuse and family court, and being in a family of people in relevant professions

The questions are pertinent and important. To be able to ascertain where the court stands with your allegations a knowledgeable person would need to know whether a finding of fact was deemed necessary. A finding of fact would have enabled you to outline your allegations in a Scott schedule and evidence would have been examined at a finding of fact. If a finding of fact was not deemed necessary allegations of domestic abuse would not have been found to have been relevant to contact arrangements.