And is that programme completely unbiased? Does it talk to all parties or is it just like OPs friend one sided?
Well it shows the teens being forcibly removed to go to their fathers from their beds at midnight, and them saying they don't want to go. It also speaks to those specific teens about why they didn't want to see their dad and how they felt about being forced. They kept trying to run away. The teen girl started self-harming. An order was made that if the teens ran away and made it back to their mother's house, the mother would be arrested. The teen boy was writing letters to the judge telling them how unhappy he was with his dad and how he was always bashing their mum to them when they were there.
It speaks to a mother who is dealing with a father who actually has a conviction for sexual offences against minors, and this peadophile has been able to force her to go to court 37 times bringing allegations against her that she is keeping the kids from him, alienating him, and emotionally abusing him, because that was the only way he could have power over them anymore.
It speaks to many professionals such as lawyers about the issues with "parental alienation" allegations in general, and looks at whether there is any evidence that these types of forced removals to live with the NRP are even successful, or if they cause more harm than good. That the studies on this are substandard and there's no robust evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions at all. A lot of the so-called "experts" drawn on in these cases aren't accredited/regulated by any professional body. Speaks to an ex judge.
It speaks to another man who is 24 and he details how he was removed 3 times to live with his father by force in his early teens. He said it left him deeply traumatised and dehumanised. The initial removal when he was 14 was recorded and it is shown. He did not want to go. He tried to jump from a balcony.
The impact on the mental health of these children that these removals have can be absolutely devastating to them and they feel their voices and wishes go unheard and/or dismissed.
It speaks to barristers who have been in the family courts. One recounts a case where a mother thought her children would be at risk having unsupervised contact with their father, who has abused and raped her, and the judge was "scathing" and dismissive, he shouted at her, and threatened that if she carried on with her case "against the fathe, then "he would make sure" her child would be put into care and even adopted. It names the judge.
It also names another judge who told a woman in the family courts that she "couldn't have possibly been raped" and she was "no shrinking violet" and had had consensual sexual relationship before (the idea that consent is always given in a marriage). That her partner didn't really mean any harm when he put a plastic bag over her head, it was "in jest".
Professionals who have been in this system have stated that the family court is highly conservative and out of step with societal understandings of abuse, rape, coercive control etc.
It talks about how the Ministry of Justice report castigated the family justice system for its treatment of DV survivors.
Also how compulsory domestic abuse training for family court judges was added to the domestic abuse bill by house of lords, but then removed by the gov as felt it "undermined judicial independence".
Unless your ex partner has been cautioned by the police for abuse or has a conviction, many struggle to access any legal aid. Average cost of proceedings in 13k, and with COVID these are lasting 18 months on average, 1/10 over 5 years. So many parents are spending thousands, some hundreds of thousands, to protect their children, especially when they end up in court over these disputes multiple times. ... Such as the woman who had to go to court 37 times over 8 years to protect her kids from a father who had a conviction for sexual offences against children! She has been diagnosed with PTSD as a result of these 8 years.
Thankfully, this diagnosis has meant that a judge can now veto whether her peadophile ex can take her to court again... But only for 3 years.
Speaks to a victim commissioner who has had clients state that if they knew what they would go through in the family courts, they would have stayed in the abusive relationship rather than go through this. How it feels like the courts collude with the perpetrator to continue abuse... But at least they had learned how to deal with their DV, so that was preferable.
There is a lot more to it than what I've tried to briefly summarise as the Despatches is about 50 mins long.
But i do recommend it. There are clearly some serious issues with the family courts and how they can be weaponised.