MNHQ here: we need your help - meeting with the Minister for Victims and VAWG

[RhiannonEMumsnet]

Hi there,

As those of you who saw our GE2024 Mumsnet Manifesto will know, two of our policy asks were related to reform of the family courts. We want the new government to ensure that judges in family courts receive regular specialist training on domestic abuse, and we want them to end the presumption of contact in cases with abusive parents. We know this is something that many of you feel very strongly about - in a survey we ran on the topic we found that:

• 85% of you agree that the presumption of parental involvement should not apply in cases where a parent has perpetrated domestic abuse, violence or rape against their child’s other parent.
• 84% of you agree that perpetrators of domestic abuse, violence or rape against their child’s other parent should have their parental responsibility removed.
• 93% of you agree that judges in family courts should receive specialist training on domestic abuse from expert organisations.

Shortly after the election, we wrote to Alex Davies-Jones MP, the new Minister for Victims and Violence against Women and Girls at the Ministry of Justice, to share the results of the survey we ran and call again for reform of the family courts system. We're delighted that she's agreed to meet us next month to talk about this important issue.

We want to use the meeting as a chance to raise your voices, and so if you have experience of the family court system that you would like us to share with the Minister - or anything else related to her responsibilities that you would like us to raise - then please do let us know via this thread.

Thanks,
MNHQ

I cant find the report where Women's Aid stated that one of the highest priorities for them to help women leave abusive relationships would be to increase the amount of affordable / social housing. Some of the costs to women trying to leave are here https://www.womensaid.org.uk/what-it-costs-to-flee-abuse-and-stay-safe/

And related to this is the fact that many Women's Aid projects are having their funding cut by local councils because (often council officers not councillors) just see women only housing as not cost effective.

So this means that with fewer refuge spaces women fleeing domestic violence are then placed in unsuitable accommodation eg mixed sex, and often with violent and exploitative men.

So as increasing housing stock is going to be a long term objective in the mean time local councils, or through a central fund, ensure there are enough safe refuge places for women. And (I know some dont want this issue to be raised) these refuges must be women only as allowed for under the SSE of the EA.

There is a similar need for often very young women, who are being sexually exploited, to have the same acess to safe housing. And not as happened under the Tories, be dumped into unregulated accommodation.

And this may also mean having to look again at the level of rents available via housing benefit / universal credit.

TL:DR An appeal to the wallet - zero tolerance on male violence would start to slow down it’s proliferation and how much male violence costs society, tax payers and govt

Because we all know women and children’s lives mean jack shit to anyone but the financial implications might just be enough to prompt some action

One male can cause irreparable damage to numerous women and children if left unchecked

Creating a family with a woman, fucking her and the children up, abandoning them and moving on to a second or third woman all the while repeating the same pattern

Each woman and each child may be left with experiences requiring immediate and/or ongoing help - from police, family court, benefits, mental/physical health services, social services, addiction support, dv support, school support, and on and on

One single man could therefore be costing thousands and thousands of ££££ to the state as well as detriment to society at large because of the knock on effects of damage his behaviour causes

The cost of locking the fuckers up and keeping them away from their victims is a drop in the ocean by comparison and would serve the purposes of;

a) preventing that male from further traumatising existing adult female victims

b) preventing that male from further traumatising their existing child/ren

c) preventing that male from grooming their existing female child/ren into being more susceptible to other abusive males

d) preventing that male from indoctrinating misogyny and abusive tactics into their existing male child/ren

e) preventing that male from creating new adult female victims and/or accessing females already traumatised by other males

f) preventing that male from creating new children to abandon/traumatise/groom/indoctrinate

g) demonstrate wholly and fully to other males that abuse of adult females or children of either sex will not be tolerated, nor excused, nor escape punishment

There really is no other way of stemming the flow of money and victims into the bottomless pit of male violence

No excuses, no special categories, no ‘but but but poor menz bc of xyz’

There has to be zero tolerance

I see that someone posted a link to my thread above, about how my ex assaulted my daughter but I ended up being punished and at serious legal risk.

I would be very happy to provide further information about my experience and what I have learned from it all offline.

I am well-educated and relatively wealthy. I was advised by a prestigious City law firm.

We never even made it to court after my ex husband assaulted my child, and I think this is an important thing to understand in the context of family proceedings; family court is at the heart of a dysfunctional system which all hinges on the workings of, and decisions made in, family court itself.

Some key points to highlight:

• Everything in the system discourages cases from going to court. Much of this is driven by the extreme dysfunctionality of the courts themselves as described below.

• Social Services is really in the position of judge and jury in these situations. Despite their immense power, I understand that they typically don't even receive much if any training on DV even though DV problems form the basis of much of their caseload: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn4970jdgq7o.amp)

• Social Services acts with impunity. Complainants are viewed as troublemakers.

• The police immediately flagged our situation as being a family law issue and therefore within the purview of Social Services. They were not interested in wasting their limited resources on our case when there was already a social worker involved. So once again, a social worker who victim blamed my daughter held immense power.

• Because Social Services are not fact finders and they are also incompetent (in my case at least), and police aren't willing to investigate where there is Social Services involvement, it is essentially as if the abuse never happened. We would have to explicitly ask the court to decide whether the DV occurred for it to factor into any family law decisions. This is risky and problematic due to the legal presumptions described below.

• My extremely expensive solicitors were clear that family court is a dangerous place and we needed to stay out of that forum due to the risks involved. I have observed that there is a 'contact at all costs' mentality that in effect works against mothers because fathers are the abusers in the vast majority of DV cases.

• The issues above arise in large part (imo) because judges are likely to believe that mothers and children make false allegations of abuse (even though in reality this really doesn't happen much at all).

• In fact, mothers who allege abuse are more likely to lose custody of their children. This is US based research, but I think it is widely understood to apply in the UK as well. / victimhttps://www.crfr.ac.uk/mothers-who-allege-abuse-more-likely-to-lose-custody-of-their-children/

• DV against the mother is viewed as irrelevant to child proceedings and claims of DV by a mother end up being used to discredit the mother.

• Courts also believe in parental alienation and it has some standing as a legal concept even though it's been widely discredited within the psychological profession. I believe that this is linked closely to the fact that DV against a mother is considered irrelevant to potential DV against a child by the same perpetrator. As I understand it, the argument goes that children invariably have a trauma bond with an abuser. Therefore, if a child does not want to see a parent whom the mother alleges is abusive, then this is proof that the mother has turned the child against the father. The theory doesn't seem to admit the possibility that some children don't like their abusive parents because they don't like being treated badly or seeing their protective parent (usually the mother) being treated badly either.

This is a sad, clear, and excellent post. In particular:

"DV against the mother is viewed as irrelevant to child proceedings and claims of DV by a mother end up being used to discredit the mother."

This is nuts. Where it's a new partner, DV against a mother is viewed as wholly relevant to the children (if not her, we know mums are considered expendable) and SS make many attempts to ensure there is no contact between the man and the children.

It is only where the man is the father of the children that SS and the courts seem to think and operate in this upside down kind of mindset.

Independent review of cafcass, proper training for social services and cafcass re issues of DA and supervised contact for any parents whom have been violent towards the co patent and child.

... family court is at the heart of a dysfunctional system which all hinges on the workings of, and decisions made in, family court itself ...

What is so sad and depressing about this is that there has been public discussion and research about this in recent years, and nothing seems to have changed.

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/womens-aid-comment-on-family-courts-after-bbc-investigation/

https://www.womensaid.org.uk/family-courts-remain-an-unsafe-and-traumatic-place-for-women-and-children/

https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/news/shocking-impact-of-family-courts-on-womens-health-exposed/

https://www.wrc.org.uk/family-courts

Another point that has come to mind: the way child maintenance is calculated in this country positively encourages ongoing abuse by would-be deadbeat dads.

Men - particularly financially abusive men - constantly push for 50/50 contact in order to reduce their financial requirements towards their children.

As courts start with a presumption of more contact (regardless of abuse), this leads to deadbeats who don't really want to care for their children seeking, and obtaining, more contact for the express purpose of ensuring that they can save some cash. Kids are worse off because they have to spend more time with neglectful abusers (who won't spend on the kids when they are in their care), plus their caring, protective parent is left with fewer financial resources which could be used for the care of children.

It's totally messed up and imo contact and financial obligations for children should be decoupled.

@BigSmallFigBall gosh yes, it seemed like a very good idea to me at the time but i came to realise that works on a presumption that men will be reasonable and it is absolutely correct that it has become another way of exerting control, and/or evading financial responsibility. It is obvious from posts that this is a problem.

there has to be a vehicle to identify abusive males within the CMS, and the family courts and the CJS, so that they are operating in conjunction. Currently they operate in silos.

So a victim of DV has to fight on three fronts it is just awful.

Totally agree.

This whole situation requires deep change, as far as I can see. It all needs looking at together: Social work, CAFCASS, courts, police, judiciary, benefits, etc.

Cafcass need thorough training on post separation abuse and coercive control of mothers and children. the Cafcass advisor we have has no concept of this and refers to 'high conflict'. apparently i am stopping my children having g a normal relationship with their father by having a police and DV service advised safety plan for drop off and pick up. i am creating conflict by pushing child maintenance through the cms. i am creating conflict by reporting an incident of stalking and harassment to police at her insistence as she wanted the crime number but then never used it. supporting a child protection referral by a hospital for medical neglect of one of the children was me creating conflict (hospital would have done it with or without my consent anyway).
Cafcass are a law to themselves and while some are very good at dealing with manipulative and tricky parents, some can't see beyond a hypothesis of 'they are both as bad as each other' as that makes for an easy report with poor analysis.
the judges i have dealt with so far have been eminently sensible and reasonable but the final hearing is next week and i am anxious based on how poor the Cafcass advisor is. you have practically no redress and just have to hope the judge gives you a fair hearing.

@iwouldnthavebelievedit your situation mirrors my own.
background of da against me from ex. Have a non mol against him which keeps being renewed. Safeguarding issues with son. Yet cafcass keep referring to ‘parental conflict’ when all the evidence (which they refuse to consider) points to the opppsite. Had an interim hearing this week which increased ex time with dc on basis of cafcass report. My concerns were ignored and a third party professional report re abuse of dc under ex care was dismissed by judge as a one off. My poor dc is not allowed to voice his feelings to ex as he is shut down and told his mother has told him to say three things..and carcass say I influenced him against ex!!

ex wants 50/50, says I am against it ‘for the money’

i fear for my dc mental health and safety. I am forced to send him to ex.

the only good thing that happened at the hearing was that judge appointed a guardian for dc but goodness knows how he/she will say. Final hearing next year

hate hate this awful cloistered family law system. My poor dc; I fear for them

I believe that cafcass have just published these updated guidelines:

www.cafcass.gov.uk/cafcass-publishes-new-domestic-abuse-practice-policy

Well that is pretty unequivocal so @RhiannonEMumsnet should be pressing for this statement to be subject to periodical file reviews of all cases, by team leaders, and a public report of all the failures in the implementation of this policy statement.

And a fast track complaints procedure where said guidance is not followed so that any report to the courts is intercepted.

Finally this should be in the bench book of sitting judges so that they can reject reports that do not follow this new procedure.

Make them cement it in.

@Panic123 i've just been sent this tonight and it's going to be very helpful at the final hearing i hope.

cafcass is not fit for purpose, the CMS is not fit for purpose. anything that could and should improve lives of women and children are chronically neglected and not have state funded persecution be accepted as normal.

@Bannedontherun oh don't get me started on the complaints process! i tried to avoid a complaint because i'm sure it's pretty standard to receive them in that service. but i was not allowed any other route to raise concerns or ask for a manager to sense check what was happening before things went too far down the line.

i would love to help shape change. what goes on now is just a shambles and children get lost in law, process, adult drama and professional incompetence.

@Panic123 the cafcass advisor who i think is incompetent appointed herself as the 16.4 guardian. did she have to apply to court for this to be agreed? in which case why was i as the parent not informed and given opportunity to object?
i'm litigant in person so have to try and learn as i go.

@iwouldnthavebelievedit i am also a LIP for now but getting support from some good people.
my s7 report was actually done by local social services not carcass (but ss just as bad). I am not in the same LA anymore either. So unfortunately I can’t comment on your situation with the guardian - the judge just said he was going to appoint one! I’ve been told that they are usually cafcass or national youth foundation people

They could start by implementing the recommendations in this report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ef3dcade90e075c4e144bfd/assessing-risk-harm-children-parents-pl-childrens-cases-report_.pdf#page172

The guidelines needed are actually already largely in place. Practice Direction 12 J says that courts should be aware of the impact of violence on children and not expose them to harm. If this was properly implemented, there would be a great deal less attention given to the rights of violent men and a great deal more to the needs of women and children to escape and recover from abuse.

It is well known that men counter allegations of abuse with accusations of “alienation”. If a child who has experienced her father abusing her mother expresses negative views about him or reluctance to spend time alone with him, this is portrayed, not least by Cafcass, as evidence that the mother has actively turned her children against him. This whole concept needs to be rooted out of family law - it is a deeply misogynistic idea which paints women as bitter liars who will weaponise children. In all my years of working with abused women I have never met one who, once she has escaped a violent ex, would seek revenge so viciously she would be willing to harm her children to do so. Why do the courts consider it happens in nearly every case?

Then when she’s sorted the family court system, could she turn her attention to the shitshow that is the Child Maintenance Service, taking months to do anything, failing to follow up non payment and then financially penalising women when men don’t pay?

@iwouldnthavebelievedit not sure if you are able to do this but I’ve asked for the s7 report author to attend the findl hearing for cross examination. I will be instructing a barrister for that

@Panic123 yes you can, and power to your elbow. Someone i supported recently did this and mincemeat was the result.

Please try and find a way to bring Samantha Hillas KC into this argument @MumsNet.com... Pro bono winner KC of the year in family law and a true advocate in DA/V cases.

the section 7 is a joke! hadn't even got the children's she's right. it says no physical abuse yet in the previous paragraph lists the incidents and i provided the police incident numbers.
she is going to be there so i am writing questions for her. i'm litigant in person and last judge said we would get QLR's but that hasn't happened.
cafcass advisor had appointed herself guardian as well which i have objected to and the children don't want to deal with her again but doubt i'll get far with that.
it's all a mess and children aren't central despite repeated claims they are.
i have read somewhere about everyone being entitled to legal aid in these cases which would be great as i don't qualify but don't earn enough to fund it. i've used over a weeks worth of annual leave this year to prepare and attend court which is less time in the school holidays with my children.
ex doesn't pay maintenance and allegedly has no income yet has had a solicitor until recently from a firm who don't do legal aid. i'm not allowed to point this out in court which does highlight bad character and attitude to the children's welfare as it's a CMS matter.

Well, good. Staggering that some.parts aren't already a baseline - sex offenders having a presumed no contact for example.

I feel yiour pain. Our 2 section 7 reports have also totally ignored the abuse, no proper analysis of welfare checklist and just ‘this is parental conflict’. The so called conflict is of course me pushing back ex controlling behaviour and advocating for ds. I’ve been told that the best way to bring these people down is to cross examine them on everything in their report.

Whilst i appreciate not MoJ territory, would you be able to raise the subject of awareness being taught in schools?

When I had help from Women's Aid, they felt more should be done in the way of prevention and being able to teach the Freedom Programme. If all women and girls were more able to identify behaviour and establish boundaries from the start, and boys learned how to have healthy relationships, then maybe there wouldn't be so much requirement for Family Court and incidents of MVAWAG would decrease over time.