My friend has just ( temporarily) lost custody of her dc..

[Ginisnnice]

As above. They were taken from the home on an order from the family court and placed with the father without warning.

She is only allowed to see them once a week, the grandparents not at all.

She says that the father has managed this as he has accussed her of " badmouthing" him to the kids and as this is seen to be harmful to the dc, in setting one parent against another, he now has custody whilst the court process reaches any further challenge.
My friend says this is unfair and the result of a mysoginistic judge.
And that her husband has used this accusation against her and is untrue.

My understanding is that there should be an independant professional to hear the dc s wishes? My friend says the dc did see someon e " but they were rubbish"..does anyone know if dc would have their wishes taken into account. ? On what basis could this even happen?

Y.

.

It is extremely rare for DC to be removed "without warning" and I think is is quite possible that your friend is being economical with the truth.

She's your friend, so of course you support her, but stay as neutral/non-committal as possible as you have only one side of the story

That isn't the whole story so no one can really advise properly.

I worked in child protection for years and there's definitely more to this than she's letting on.

The children are entitled and will get a safeguarder to put their views across and ensure they and their needs and preferences are being listened to and taken into account.

There's definitely more to the story though.

Because they have zero legal rights to see the children, and it was likely written in to prevent them attempting to return the children to their mother if they did see them.

This is my line of work and I can tell you for a fact, I've seen some bad cases where children are STILL not removed from their main carer with no warning/for "bad mouthing"
There is absolutely more to this story than your friend has disclosed.

I don't think your friend is telling you the whole story.

What views do you think the 6 and 8 year olds should have heard? Was their father abusive to them? If not, then they would not have any reason to say they don't want to see their father. But if they are just channelling their mother's wishes, then it is alienation.

Your friend is telling porkies, which could be one of the contributing reasons that she's lost her kids albeit temporarily.

Your friend isn’t being honest.

Also, it may not be temporary.

TBH I would find it hard to stay friends with someone who poisoned their children to the extent they were removed from her care. Parental alienation is abuse in itself.

This isn't a he said, she said situation. The courts have evidence that your friend is a risk to her children for whatever reason. They don't remove kids lightly. You aren't hearing the half of it.

I know someone this has happened to. Someone I was friends with for years. In that case there's far more to the story than she has let on and she is far more to blame than she'd ever admit - she's been badmouthing the Father, but there's a reason that social services trust him to have custody and not her.

Please remember OP, this is about what’s best for the children, not what’s best for your friend.

Of course you want to be supportive of her, but her needs are not the issue.

Hopefully their dad is doing a good job caring for them. This won’t have gone down like she’s said it did. I’d be wary of getting too involved.

I'd say there's a lot more going on than she's letting on, sadly.

The voice for the children that she may be talking about could be CAFCASS?

People here have touching faith in the notoriously misogynistic and corrupt family courts.

Read the article before you condemn ignorantly.

I believe your friend’s version of events. Courts are not delivering justice to ex partners and children of abusive men, who are allowed to continue their abuse through the courts. It’s horrific.

OP, your friend might find this video very helpful:

Your friend is not telling you the full facts here. If the outside bodies involved were court appointed people they are most likely child welfare reporters and/or a child psychologist. The children were most likely removed because the mother was deemed not fit to care for them or meet there needs including emotional ones. I suspect it’s been proven she has alienated the kids from there or there is significant evidence that she is not fit to care for the kids. Parental alienation is difficult to evidence but tends to be very manipulative behaviour that is undertaken with the sole intention of stopping the child from seeing the other parent. The child does not have permission to have the relationship with the other parent which makes it impossible for them to have one. It’s awful for the child to go through this.

How is it ‘alienation’ to tell your kids that their dad is abusive?

It's not. No-one is saying it is. In the case I know about there is far more to it, and her version of events is, frankly, fiction. Lots of people believe her though. She is articulate and educated. I also know for a fact she's told a pack of lies.

This is an almost identical story to somebody I was knew who had alienated her children's father. The way it was described to me was nothing like the reality and believe me you've not had the full story here. There would have been multiple breaches to get to
this point. She's not being honest with you. Transferring residency is a very very last resort and only at the best interests of the children.

This happened to my male friend's ex. She had been monitoring her kids phones and WhatsApp and stopping them contacting their dad (my mate). She was also sending messages from their phones pretending to be them, saying they didn't want to see him. Eventually, after many instances where she stood him up (including Xmas) he was given custody.

For everyone saying ‘more going on’ as in the mother has done something seriously wrong to have the children removed (ie it’s her own fault) in a case of parental alienation, I’d suggest ’not always’. A close friend whose story I know well has completely been at the mercy of a controlling ex husband using the court to continue to exert control and dominance over my friend and their DD. Another friend was subject to erroneous reporting by a young and experienced social worker influenced by her manipulative ex. It is not always ‘something more’, sometimes it really is a system enabled by misogynist judges and clerks who are a part of the problem.

More recently, a PA ‘industry’ appears to have amassed comprising experts, therapists and lawyers, advocating transfers of children’s care from ‘alienating’ mothers to non-resident fathers, as well as PA therapy for children and parents. While PA has had a chequered history and is not without its critics, it has become part of the discursive repertoire of current family law, with increasingly harsh consequences for women and children

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/divorce-laws-child-custody-parental-alienation-cafcass-mother-father-a8062941.html

www.ncjfcj.org/publications/a-judicial-guide-to-child-safety-in-custody-cases/

www.forbes.com/sites/naomicahn/2020/01/26/why-women-lose-custody/

I believe "ex parte" is another way of saying "with immediate effect"

I am nosy & want to know the truth but I kind of hope you don't get it, OP. I doubt your friend is being honest & it may be hard for you to be supportive when you find out the true story.