Children's Voices in Family Law

[ladyclare]

We are a group of mothers who are working to improve the Family Court system which has become biased towards contact under any circumstances. Even when domestic violence has been a problem, they ignore the fact that children are hurt by witnessing domestic violence against their primary carer and that domestic violence leads to child abuse.

In America the Courageous Kids Network has been set up. Children are speaking out about the wrong decisions that were made for them in the family courts and how they were given over to their abusers in secret decisions.

We are looking for people in the UK who have been through the court system and were forced to have contact with an abusive parent or there was a transfer of custody to the abusive parent, especially if they lost contact with the protective parent.

If you were in this position and are willing to have your story used to help us campaign for a change in the law, we would love to hear from you. Please email us at [email protected]

i haven't been in the situation but others may have so bumping for you

Bumping this as well, I know of a little girl who is going to be forced to spend a lot of time with an abusive father just because his father coached her heavily to talk to CAFCASS on HIS behalf.

It breaks my heart to see that she is not aware of the life changing implications of saying to that "nice lady" exactly what her father told her to tell her.

I wholeheartedly support the aims of groups wo wish to improve the family court system. However, I would question the assertion that courts are 'biased' towards 'contact under any circumstances'. It's certainly not backed up by my experience or that of a number of my friends. There is just as much (if not more) anecdotal evidence to the contrary, and family law cases are private. Whilst figures are available in general terms, there is a world of difference between 'indirect' contact (say being allowed to send a card at Xmas) and an order for direct unsupervised contact, but both these outcomes would be described as 'successful' applications.

Thank you very much for your replies.

Even one child expected to have contact with an abusive parent is too many.

Good point, Tanga. Indirect contact is very different to direct unsupervised contact.

Very interested in your group, as ex partner gets contact all the time, where can we find more details of your campaign

Whereas the courts don't always get it right I don't think the courts are biased - the established case law relating to DV is Re L and the Family Division's President's Guidance on DV is available to download from HM Courts Services. Courts often are dealing with very sensitive matters which are private. Most people wouldn't want the general public sitting in on their families' medical appointments or having access to their medical/social work/police records so why should their privacy be less protected for court cases?

It isn't surprising that there is a presumption that when children live with one parent they should grow up knowing and seeing the other parent unless there is evidence they are at risk of significant harm. Based upon research it is generally accepted by child care experts that a child's sense of security and existing bonds shouldn't be disrupted as long as children are surviving satisfactorily. Research also indicates children who do not know both their parents (even if one of the parents would by most people's standards leave a lot to be desired) tend to have low self esteem leading to insecurities, behavioural problems, emotional difficulties, dysfunctional relationships etc in later life.

I agree children should be listened to, however, it's important to understand the rational behind the views of a child. For example, is the child is expressing a genuine preference or they are mirroring the preference of one of the parents as a result of direct pressure or threats or a desire to please. In dysfunctional relationships, preferences may reflect the child?s alignment with the parent they most fear, or the parent they regard as the most unstable. Or is a child?s stated preference a result of factors which are clearly not in their best interests? Younger children may lack the developmental capacity to understand what life would really be like if their preferences became reality. A child may state a preference impulsively or for reasons which are not in their best interests. For example, an adolescent boy may state that he wants to live with his father. Upon closer examination the real reason for his preference is that the father provides no structure or discipline, lets him drink, stay out all night and so forth. Another problem with giving great weight to children?s preferences is that it may weaken parents' authority over the child, if the children believe that they can control their parents by threatening.

These aren't reasons why children shouldn't be consulted or their feeling and concerns listened to carefully but it takes time and resources to do it properly. Children's wishes and feelings should be listened to sensibly with the best interests of children in mind and they should not be made to feel that they are pawns in a battle between two parents.

In my limited experience, I would say that the family court system is very much biased toward contact without properly investigating or considering circumstance.

Not in my case. I was lucky in respect that my ex is still being violent so I have got contact down from contact centre to nothing at all.

Cafcass and solicitor were very good.....especially cafcass.

bumping again

I absolutely applaud the importance of hearing the children's voice in family law proceedings.

I am, however, troubled by the Courageous Kids Network as everything I have seen about them is couched in terms of it only being fathers who abuse their children and that mothers can always be counted on to provide a place of safety. This is not always the case and it can be a very dangerous assumption to make. Mothers can be abusers.

I can't see why a childs opinion shouldn't count.

Each case should be obviously tackled on an individual basis. If a PARENT has evidence that the other PARENT has been abusive then quite clearly contact should stop.

it sint that simeple.

contact does not stop when a parent has evidence of a parent being abusive to the other parent.

perhaps sometimes it is the case that once seprated, parent A the abuser can simply parent the children as can parent B and both sides can move on from the Dv issues. so tehre could be a nice happy outcome in which DV was solely directed against person B and once separated, the DV is gone - and maybe parent A can or can elarn to be a good parent to his or her DC. maybe.

but sometimes parent A poses a risk to the children.

lundy bancroft article has some consideration of the risks to take into account - every case is different.

the model he proposes should be used in my view - that is the issue i think.

Assessing Abusers? Risk to Children
2004, with Jay G. Silverman, Ph.D. In P. Jaffe, L. Baker, & A. Cunningham (Eds.) Protecting Children from Domestic Violence: Strategies for Community Intervention, New York, NY, Guilford Press

www.lundybancroft.com/?page_id=261

If you would like further details about the group, or if you would like to join, www.childrensvoicesinfamilylaw1.com is the site link.

It certainly looks like Mothers may have the same issues with closed Family Courts as Fathers do, maybe it really is time for change?

Militants on both sides of the divide irritate the problem by using rhetoric designed to inflame and get a reaction.

Looking at some of the wording on the home page I can see that the emphasis is on the Mothers rights (The same can be said of Fathers rights groups of course) but to get a change for the better militants must gve way to the norm because it's that stance that prevents real dialogue developing.

Any sane parent would hate to hand their children over to a controlling freak who uses children to maintain a hold over ther ex partner. The Family courts can't distinguish between common sense and their own common practice rules. It's time for REAL courts to weigh up both sides of an argument and give a decision based on protective laws and enforceable statutes.

My own experiences are opposite to this and I did in fact live with an abuse partner who still uses the children to have contact with me. Where is the redress there?

A REAL court would have given the right kind of justice without the use of the PRIVATE Family courts intervention.

I do however understand and have seen Men haunt their ex's to the point of stalking and they needed banging up for the laws applied and used in cases not relating t family business....you Men out there that have been this way are a disgrace to Fatherkind.

But there is also a flipside where Mothers (% unknown) use the Family courts and their "Rights" as Mothers to impede contact fr very long periods hence controlling a situation. They too need to be brought to book.

Interesting website thanks for the link.

Dadaz,

The link to the site did say that people like yourself can join.

If you want to hand over some paperwork to do with your case to the site above or Families Need Fathers (FNF), it can be brought to the eyes of the relevant people in the coming weeks, as there are important meetings taking place in the Palace of Westminster, and both organisations have been invited and will have a representitive attending.

My experience is contact at any cost is the only target for Cafcass. The courts ignore the father's refusal to make financial contribution and inappropriate behaviour. Allow father to use child as a weapon.

Of course there are some mother's who don't behave properly also. Resident parents are often the mother's and the law changed to punish resident parents for not complying with contact orders. However, there is no punishment for feckless fathers' not bothering to comply with contact orders.

missisipii....yes I too find this very odd, me ex has been back to the court so many times for 'his rights' as he puts it, (not about the children but him) and yet the summer holiday he wanted the exact dates for set each year, he hasn't yet taken, just said he couldn't do it, the tea visit stopped years ago, he has not complied with the court order that he wanted, and they were things that he went to the court to have written in the order! He has wasted the court's time.

missisipii There are feckless fathers and abusive fathers, however, the Family Court system is heavily biased in favour of mothers as almost everyone accepts. The argument is not over whether this bias exists but whether it is appropriate. The truth is that the Family Court system currently gives advantage to mothers who behave badly and research seems to suggest that in contested cases almost all mothers do precisely this. When a system provides an incentive for a certain kind of behaviour it is no surprise that this is what results. People, generally, are not stupid and will act in whatever manner is most likely to win their case. I also read that pretty-much 100% of mothers in contested cases indulge in some degree of coercion of their children in an attempt to alienate the children from the father. That is natural in the circumstances because there is always plenty of ill-feeling around but, nonetheless, it's not great for kids. Mothers are often encouraged in the view that whatever they determine is best for their children is, in fact, best for them by virtue of their possession of maternal instincts/a womb. This mystique is a load of cobblers because the instinct of mothers, like the instinct of everyone else, is generally to support and serve their own prejudices, inclinations and interests. Regardless of the judgement of the personalities involved, the mother's view usually being the least reliable, the best outcome for children is obtained by shared custody arrangements with each parent having 50% of custody, responsibility and authority. All the evidence supports this except in the case where the child is at real risk of abuse. Surprisingly, many mothers make allegations of abuse at the point where the issue of custody is being decided. Each case is different and there are always particular circumstances and everyone who has been through the Family Courts has their own story which illustrates that they are the good parent and the other is the bad. However, the system is heavily biased in favour of mothers and that should and will be changed.

Excellent post, Andre1960.

And Missisipii, whilst I have many complaints about the way Cafcass works, 'contact at any cost' is just laughable. I understand that you must have had a very difficult experience, but that doesn't mean that Cafcass is like that as a whole.