better - you have hit the nail on the head about 'masking behaviour'. Of course that is what manipulative, abusive people do - yet when they get into court they behave as if butter wouldn't melt..and the courts look at us as if we're the ones who are mad!
One of the main problems I see is that the system adopts a "One size fits all" approach. It doesn't work. For example, they are now advocating shared parenting. Great - and for those families who can make shared parenting work, they are already doing it. lostdad - you state that mums and dads should be talking not fighting. Those that can, are. And those parents have probably never seen the inside of a court room, heard of CAFCASS, and probably have no court order.
It's the ones that can't (which usually involves DV) where the problem lies. You simply can't make people talk, especially if the RP has had to previously abandon home, pick up babies and seek refuge. The mother's "protective instinct" is on high alert, rightly so, and yet she is then expected to ignore it and hand them over to her persecutor. It is actually quite barbaric.
Also, we have many cases now where parents are splitting up whilst the mother is pregnant. The NRP may or may not be involved in the early stages of a child's life. Should they get the same "one size treatment"? Shared parenting in many cases where the father disappeared for the early years would be entirely inappropriate, yet there are cases where residency has been granted to such people.
We often hear people say the child has a "right to see both parents". Sadly, in law, they do not. If the NRP decides not to see their children, the court will not force it. Yet the minute that NRP flits back into their life demanding contact, it is immediately granted. Why? Is that not emotionally damaging to the child?
We have a huge problem in this country. We have high single parent families, high unemployment, drug usage, full prisons, etc. Therefore rather than using the meaningless expression of "in the interests of the child", the court should be focusing on POSITIVE OUTCOMES for the children. A child could have a very meaningful relationship with a parent who they see for one hour every day. However, NRPs would not agree to that - they want full overnight access blah, blah. Why? If there is any element of risk whatsoever to the child, be it physical, emotional or otherwise, then surely contact must be restricted until the risk is eliminated?
There are two streams of single parents - the ones that are harmonious and the ones that are acrimonious. The acrimonious ones need help - desperately in order to ensure that our children grow into well-balanced individuals with a chance of getting somewhere in life. At the moment the odds are stacked against them. CAFCASS, Courts etc. need to change their approach or this social problem will only multiply.
Just because a child doesn't have bruises, does not mean he's safe.The emotional damage being done to these children is far more difficult to assess - yet it becomes clear when, God forbid, they turn into adults who are drug users, criminals, socially inept, etc. And yet it can be avoided by allowing the primary carer to do just that - take prime care.
Children are born with two parents. Sadly, sometimes one parent is not suited/able to provide adequate care for them. It is then left to the other parent to provide it and safeguard the child.
The courts should be commending us for doing it, not denying us the right.