Ladies - Add your vote if you think the court system/authorities are failing us and our children

[Lionessnurturingcubs]

Numerous threads on here and elsewhere have indicated that the "Family Law" system in this country is failing us - lone mothers and our children.

This country stigmatises single parent mothers. There is a totally false perception that we are all in our teens, living off the state. WE ARE NOT.

The Gingerbread website has the actual statistics:-
The average age of a single parent is 38.1.

59.2% of us work.
Half had children within marriage. It is safe to assume that a lot more had children within a relationship.

As mothers, we have a natural instinct to protect our children. We have a right to ensure that NO-ONE, even the biological father, has the right to damage them emotionally, physically, or in any other way. This right is being denied us through the 'Family Law' system in this country, which is stacked against the father.

We have had enough. We now want to organise into a coherent group and are considering taking our voice to the European Court of Human Rights. Please add a one liner here, if you agree or support this principle. It does not mean you are committing to anything, we just want to see the wealth of feeling behind this. Please name change if you don't want to give anything away!

tom he was essentially labelled as 'a bit thick', and that he didn't really realise what he was saying .. . because no one would actually come out with that stuff if they understood what they were saying. That was at the last proper hearing last year.

As I've said in your other thread, we've just been in court for 3 days and I'm hoping there can be no doubt as to the kind of person he is. As horrendous as its been listening to him, its also been like therapy as there he was, for all to see, as the nasty, compulsive lying person he really is.

What will the judge do? Don't know? xx

I really hope it goes the right way for you.and your children x

what do we reckon first step is? where do we take it? I suggested on the other thread about doing s petition . I think a letter to downing street wouldn't hurt, explaining who.we are and what we want?

MissMarplesBloomers - `Lostdad of course you are right BUT as Lioness says often the balance of power is with the NRP who also is often(not always) the Dad.'
I have to disagree with this.

In my capacity I see courts saying (incorrectly) I cannot make an order if the RP doesn't agree with it. I see RPs habitually refusing to attend mediation because they hold all the cards and they're not going to give any of them away. I see RPs telling NRPs `You'll only see your child if it has been ordered by a court and not a moment longer'.

And if the RP decides to break a court order the court is unlikely to enforce it's own order in any shape or form. If the RP decides they will delay the hearing by refusing to turn up the court won't make an order in their absence, instead rescheduling a hearing.

My personal view is that neither parent should be the `Resident Parent' - the moment you give one power over the other the RP can (and often does) dictate to the NRP. It takes two people to create a child and they should be equals.

lostdad - I admire your neutrality, and yes concede that it could be referred to as RP vs NRP issue. However, I actually believe that it IS a gender issue; by virtue of the fact that mother has a natural, maternal instinct to nurture, protect and safeguard her offspring and it is that natural, maternal instinct that is being denied. Which is why it becomes a human rights issue. Watch any zoo programme. If a male animal attacked the female whilst she was pregnant, feeding, nurturing her cubs, the keepers would immediately split them up and male would no longer have access.

catdogmouse - What about the resident parent who is using the court system to their advantage? No DV involved. They are so bitter that they will stand in court and just deny access except on their terms This is the most perpetuated myth that is at the root of the problem.

Any RP who has the time, money and energy to go to court out of sheer hatred with no evidence would have to be off their rocker. First and foremost they risk 'losing' their children, as residency could be swapped. 2nd they risk going to prison, if they have breached orders etc. They would simply get laughed out of court - as many do who have hard, concrete evidence. Invariably there is bitterness at first, but surely the system has 'trained professionals' to spot the difference? Er no, they don't and therein lies the problem.

If you go to court, and risk all of that, it's usually because you have damn good reason and evidence, which is being dismissed because of unsubstantiated myths like that. And therein lies the gender issue - the stigmatising of single women as "teenagers living off the state, who somehow chose this position" and the glorification of Dads as poor, hard done by men being denied access by a bitter woman, is at the root of it. Until these stereotypes and myths are dispelled, we will continue on this merry-go-round and our social problems will increase exponentially.

Agree totally that there will always be people who.perpetuate the myth that it is so easy for mothers to stop contact with abusive fathers at the drop of a hat. Ow firmly believes that poor Ex has been the victim in all of this. Despite police records, a fact findung hearing, social services reports and police photigraphs if bruises. She is dangerous in that she feeds his narcissim, she also tells his story to plenty of other people who believe that his contact is so limited for no good reasin. And whilst there are women who are prepared to act as she does, the harder the battle to.protect kids is.

Excuse my appalling spelling! Typing on phone with no glasses!!!

My personal view is that neither parent should be the `Resident Parent' - the moment you give one power over the other the RP can (and often does) dictate to the NRP. It takes two people to create a child and they should be equals.

Sorry Lostdad, have to disagree. Again, I believe that it is this political correctness that has caused a lot of the problems. The two parents, in our society and many others,traditionally have different roles - one nurturer/carer - Mum and the other breadwinner/worker - Dad. History proves that children have grown up quite adequately within this process. in many families this is still the case - how many double parent families are there where the children grow up with very limited contact with Dad because he doesn't get home til late, etc.

Children's Social Care recognise that there has to be one primary carer. If RP lodges a complaint about something NRP has done, they simply say you are the primary carer, you have responsibility to decide what is in the best interests of the children. But the fact is we don't, because the court order orders us to send the children regardless.

It is the blurring of the lines between the two roles, and the trying to give everyone equal rights that has caused the problem. We need to scrub this ridiculous theory and start again.

Children grow up very well with ONE good main carer (not even necessarily a parent). POSITIVE OUTCOME. Children do not grow up well with two parents/careers in conflict - either inside or outside marriage - NEGATIVE OUTCOME.

If we want to improve our social failings, we have to look at the root cause. It is right here in the way children are literally being pulled between pillar and post by a system that doesn't have the balls to call a spade a spade.

Is this instinct exclusive to mothers? And is it scientifically proven? Or is it your imaginings?

Hey heysoulsister - when my babies were born and they cried, my breasts leaked milk. No imaginings, just good old mother nature at her best. When they cry now, the feeling is equally intense several years down the line. Mother Nature replaces the breast milk leaking with an intense feeling.
:well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/maternal-instinct-is-wired-into-the-brain/?_r=0.

It's the first time I've been accused of political correctness!

At the risk of being accused of setting up a straw man it sounds like you'd say you are `traditional' and I always draw a sharp intake of breath when I hear this sort of thing.

How traditional do you want to get and for what culture? Bigamy if you're from the Middle East or Utah? The right to rape your spouse if you're into Victorian values?

I'm a cynical old sod and my first response would be Really? And who decides what is normal'?' I wouldn't trust myself to make that decision so I tend to take the attitude `Everyone has a right to be treated equally' and lead on from there.

For example - would you play the little lady to your husband and accept that he pays you `housekeeping' while he keeps a tight grip on the finances whilst you have his tea on the table when he comes home?

Some mums aren't nuturing. Some dads are. Some mums are breadwinners. Some dads aren't. And so on. It's ironic - I'm not a fan of many forms of feminism by a long shot but I honestly believe that it is more important that someone is treated as a person rather than anything else.

Each to their own I say...

The courts absolutely fail in protecting children from an abusive parent. I had a finding of facts hearing where every single point of abuse against me was upheld, but because I had not gone to SS & the GP with regards attempted abuse against my children the judge refused to accept that my children were at risk of abuse by ex. Although she upheld one count of neglect & accepted that my older child was deeply psychologically damaged by ex.

I have spent over five years & ££££ in legal fees tying to protect my children.

The courts should always err on the side of caution & if a parent is found to be abusive against their spouse then they should presume that the children of the family are also at risk from abuse by that parent.

The parent trying to protect their child should not have to jump thro hoops to protect their child.

fuzzywuzzy - total agreement . that is why we need a need system away from the courts where its not 'innocent until.proven guilty' but as you put it 'er on side of caution' . it is not right that anyone whether it be man or woman can.behave in anirresponsible, abusive manner and still have rights to their children!! believe me I have felt like murdering my ex, however have never laid a finger on him because when you are a parent your child comes first. I made the choice to act responsibly , he didnt!!

lost dad - as iv said before I agree it should not be s gender issue. however a mothers leaking breasts is nature not to be compared with the cultural traditions that u describe.

I'm concerned we are moving away fr om the treads objective though. can we discuss what could be done?

Lostdad could definitely do this debate over a glass of wine!

I agree with each to their own... And as I said those that can do their own thing, the harmonious ones, do. It's us acrimonious ones who can't, and we're the ones who end up in court. Which is why we need to try a different route.

Just because the harmonious brigade have managed it, is not enough reason to tell us that we HAVE to do the same. We can't!! For whatever reason, DV, safeguarding issues, emotionally damage to kids, etc., the mother's instinct has kicked in and said "Stop! I will protect my kids." The courts are overruling this instinct by the sweeping generalisations saying "everyone has equal rights" blurdy blah. It ain't go crack it for these kids. Poor old fuzzywuzzy now has a child "deeply psychologically damaged" - huge hugs fuzzy. But hey ho, Dad was given equal rights so that's OK. NO! NO! NO! Deeply psychologically damaged FFS!! Whilst the system was giving equal rights, no one parent has power etc, etc, a poor child has been damaged. NEGATIVE OUTCOME FOR CHILD. Alarm bells!

Actually, I'm anything but a traditionalist but we are are too good at labelling, and generalising. It needs to change and it needs to change now. Fuzzy - sorry to highlight your example but that is so sad for your DC. And so unnecessary and exactly the point we are making. Hope you get the help and support you need.

I don't mind at all being used as an example. I agree with you. My barrister was also very frustrated at the judgment as the judge agreed yes the eldest child is displaying damaged behaviour but the father should be allowed contact which must be progressed into an unsupervised environment as quickly as possible (thank God that judge is now retired).

My eldest has had CBT & excellent pastoral care at school which has really helped.

I spent five years begging for help from Cahms, SS & Caf nobody would help me because my child has a stable home life with me & the courts were involved (SS said to let them know if ex got unsupervised contact!), and Cahms refused to help as contact was ongoing and thefore the factor causing the trauma was still present and they felt that they could not help. Initially they also told me my child was not damaged enough for help when referred thro my GP. Frankly I don't want a damaged enough child!

Yes, Fuzzy, I've got that Tshirt begging for help from CAHMs ET. Al. Frustration doesn't even begin to describe my feelings. Glad your DC got some support.

Tom well done for keeping us task-focused. I like that! So, where do we go? Have just been reading the ECHR procedures and it seems that we first have to ensure the case is admissible, but we have to exhaust UK process first. (As outlined by Lostdad, but he was talking about specific cases).

We need to outline what the issues are, and why our human rights are being denied, and then not sure what the first step would be locally. Do we amass all our cases together, or do we simply start a new claim US v. Family Law system (UK Gov)?

Any views?

I think we have to do something to change this access at any cost culture.

The courts are (supposedly) there to ensure the child has equal access to both parents in the event of a divorce/split FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILD.

It is NOT the god given right of the NRP to see their child, IF that contact is detrimental to the childs welfare......and that's where it all falls apart proving that there is damage being done to our children.

Personally I think there should be compulsory mediation in all divorce cases,or break ups involving children(DV cases possibly being the exception) but there should be a way of having a neutral meeting place where both parties can try and hammer out an agreement for the future of the children. With specially trained meditors.

Also far more childrens contact centres so that the RP can agree access to the NRP knowing the children are safe. I have seen so many cases where the RP (mostly women) are dragged through the courts for access, just as another abusive controlling tactic. They then muck around contact agreements and generally make the RP's life hell, and that of the children they purport to love. If the NRP really really has the childrens best interests at heart they will move heaven & earth to see them regardless of location.

I know the above all costs money but the untold cost to the little lives being affected makes me weep and ultimately costs the govt/tax payer far more in the knock on effects.

Lioness - unfortunately it is not a myth as you put it. There are very bitter women out there playing the system to their advantage.

Yes, they have the time and the money. Our fees reached 10k and I'm sure hers were the same. The only person that was proven to be abusive was the RP. We also had to go back to court to enforce the order. Sadly the magistrates stopped short of community service but have made sure that it is clearly understood that next time that will be enforced.

Tomsellecklover - yes mediation took place. The RP would only agree to access in her home with her present throughout. She had a timescale of 12 months worked out before she would 'allow' access away from her home. This was all supposedly based on medical requirements for the DC. No accusations even of DV.

Because he wouldn't do that she insisted on a contact centre. This went on for months until the magistrates finally told her that she could lose her children and granted immediate overnight access.

False allegations aren't non existent, but even the CPS recognises that they are very rare.

This is a quote from The Director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC:

"From the cases we have analysed, the indication is that it is therefore extremely rare that a suspect makes a false accusation of rape or domestic violence purely out of malice. It is within this context that the issue should be viewed, so that myths and stereotypes around these cases are not able to take hold"

The myth is that it happens a lot, it really doesn't. I have no doubt whatsoever that my ex will be saying this to anyone who will listen..

MissMarples - great post - hit the nail on the head.

Catdog&mouse - I wasn't trying to say your DP's case was a myth but rather that the perception is that EVERY woman who goes to court is simply trying to prevent a good, child loving dad access to his beloved children. IF that were the real scenario, we would not have the social issues that we have today, because those children would have POSITIVE OUTCOMES - as in successful contact with both parents.

Baby - your quotes and statistics are brilliant. Keep 'em coming!

There are numerous POSITIVE OUTCOMES for children:
A. The ideal - shared parenting.
B. The happy medium - RP with successful quality contact with NRP.
C. The manageable - RP with restricted non-overnight contact
D. The difficult but crucial - RP with supervised contact
E. The very sad - indirect contact only with NRP.

Whilst some or many of these are difficult for the RP and/or the NRP, the fact is that the children will have a POSITIVE OUTCOME, ie. they will be safeguarded and emotionally well-balanced and should be able to develop normally. The problem is (gender alert!) fathers have successfully campaigned, and now the system is biaised towards achieving A. the ideal, which is obviously in the father's interest, but not necessarily the child's.

The point we are making is that can't always work. The court says they are acting in the"best interests of the child" but that is statistically not true. If you are sending a child for contact who then becomes emotionally damaged because of something father is doing, be it emotional, physical or otherwise, it has a huge NEGATIVE OUTCOME for the child. Far better, as stated earlier to err on the side of caution and restrict contact even temporarily to ensure the child is safeguarded. POSITIVE OUTCOME.

The upshot is we are risking a NEGATIVE OUTCOME for the child, simply so that NRP can have a positive outcome. Wrong. It has to be turned around - give the child the POSTIVE OUTCOME and let the NRP endure a (temporary) negative outcome that they can handle, ie. contact centre., restricted contact, whatever.

The courts and CAFCASS act as if a contact centre or restricted contact is a prison sentence on the NRP. It is not, it is a temporary measure FFS. A NEGATIVE OUTCOME for a child who turns out emotionally and physically damaged due to prolonged damage by NRPs behaviour. Now, that's the real prison sentence.

hi guys, been onto NSPCC today, wanted advice from them. they said the only thing i can do is educate my child so that if anything does happen she would hopefully tell me... this is a very sad state of affairs. im feeling realyl run down so may go a bit quiet over next day or so. am still behind you all the way though. tom's lover x

My vote here. The courts are failing my DC massively. My story is too long to post on here.

You cannot treat two parents as equal if one has eg committed domestic abuse or has severe aggression etc. Each circumstance is different. But it is separating genuine instances from "just" bitter warring parents due to eg someone has gone off with someone else . soemtimes a judge may deem that the concerns of the resident parent are just being spiteful when there are in fact genuine issues.

And it isn't always apparent when the baby or babies is are created...

Well said Lioness
tom I am so sorry to hear what the NSPCC said. Why should you be expected to police him? esp. on top of everything else you have to do. You do not have an infinite amount of emotional strength.
How much do the NSPCC spend on advertising on TV to tell people to let them know when they are concerned about a child? and they hand it back to the child to sort out in effect, at such a young age - really shocked. AND I am sure I read very recently that thier latest campaign was about `prevention' and they were talking about how much money it would save in the long run as well as the emotions of children/adults of the future.
Keep your chin up tom - think of all those who have fought for justice in the past, lets stand with them. You have our support, you and DD are going to be ok. Where there are half a dozen of us in this position there are many more.. and we will find away to come together and stop this.

Tomselleck I feel your pain and share your frustration. I remember being completely bewildered by the DV social worker explaining to me that he would be doing some 'safety planning' with the children so that they would know what to do if their dad lashed out again. Teaching my 6 year old to dial 999 or run for a neighbour