ex mil and court

[cdcd]

Hi my ex mil is currently dragging my through court for access to my 10 month old baby. Her son my ex is a violent drunk they havn't seen baby since she was 10 weeks old as ex smashed up my house stole my car and was sent to prison. when he was released he continued to harass me he was given a harassment order which he breached, smashed up my (new) car, tried to kick i my front door at 3 in the morning was a arrested and bailed breached his bail waited at my eldest childs school an threatened me. He was again arrested and given a community order, alcohol treatment and a restraining order not to contact me etc. He has threatened to kill me and my family on numerous occasions and threatened to take the baby. His mum (who he lives with) wants access just received a letter for the next hearing stating because of my Implacable hostility it is to be held at the county court. WTF!!! how is it that because I wont let my baby girl near my dick of an ex who's threatened "If I ever get to see her you'll never see her again" I'm being Implacably hostile.

Duelingfanjo,(There are 2 "l's" in "duelling.) I am the only one who hasn't got wound up, it seems. You didn't even read what I said, ie reporting posts at that time of morning is a bit sad.

Somethingsuper,

That is rather abusive but I'll just put it down to you being a little hormonal when you posted it. I actually put very little effort into the thread although I clearly put a little more intelligence into what I did post- not particularly difficult under the circumstances.

It's like Graham Lister out of Vic Reeves Big Night Out

ShoutyHamster Sun 01-May-11 20:10:18

grin It's like Graham Lister out of Vic Reeves Big Night Out

Who are they? (showing even greater age)

Sad that it's a troll, but still a usefull discussion about a situation that does occur in real life.

thumbwitch - I didn't mean giving out the new address if she/he/troll moved! Sorry, probably didn't express myself clearly. But there would have to be some kind of way of securing indirect contact in a case like this. A lot of my clients use their solicitors but that is because case is ongoing. Only other alternative is PO Box number.

For what it is worth - I have had clients who were clearly victims of violence and whose ex partners were nasty, dangerous men. I have also had clients who hated their ex with a passion and were prepared to lie and exaggerate.

But the latter were in the definite minority. I am afraid there are a lot of really nasty dangerous men out there and for reasons not clear to me they don't seem to have much trouble finding girlfriends who will have their babies.

nope, you are wrong. Just one 'l' in Dueling. Though how I decide to spell my own choice of username is irrelevant. Or perhaps not in your strange world.

I'm not embarrassed that this thread was started by a troll.

I'm relieved it isn't a real person going thro this however.

My advice would stand regardless, I have nothing to be ashamed about, apart from you Tyr, nobody on this thread was suggesting the OP do anything that would be against the best interest of the child. Had the story been true, the child would not have been safe in the care of the grandparent and actually I dont think grandparents have any say whatsoever in child contact issues, and thank god for that!

What capacity have you actually stood up in court alongside people accused of DV?

A grand parent can ask for contact. In most instances, if there is an issue of DV with the non resident parent, for instance the parents of the father, then contact will almost certainly be supervised or supported contact, at a contact centre.

What is such a shame is that a lot of grand parents want to distance themselves from their off spring's behavior, and maintain a relationship with their grand children and do 'normal' sorts of things.

"and actually I dont think grandparents have any say whatsoever in child contact issues, and thank god for that!"

That is one of the most stupid, ignorant and bigotted remarks on this thread (and that is saying something) Grandparents are an invaluable resource in families.

What I do for a living is none of your business.

Grandparents, just like parents can be a force for enormous good or enormous evil.

It is very sad that some loving grandparents are effectively shut out of their children's lives, but there are some really nasty pieces of work out there - unsurprisingly really when you see how their children have turned out. Those violent dangerous ex's just didn't wake up one morning violent and dangerous. They were created over a long period of time.

So there isn't any automatic rule that grandparents can get involved and I hope there never will be - they can apply for permission to make an application for contact and I think that is a very useful screening tool.

Actually, if i remember correctly, the government (while still in opposition) gave a commitment to the Grandparents Association that they would remove the stipulation that they need to seek leave to apply.
Whether they keep their word or not is another matter. I have only known leave to be denied once and there were very clear grounds.
It would be ridiculous to think that there are lots of evil GP's seeking contact through the courts. Lousy GP's are unlikely to make the effort. Neither is it true that a GP will be a bad influence simply because their offspring didn't turn out so well.
What I have noticed is that those GP's who do apply frequently face the same barrage of false and spurious allegations as parents.
The reason is actually quite simple; it is not about the best interests of the child, rather the embittered need for control on the part of the RP. In order to justify their unreasonable and selfish behaviour, they have to make allegations. Courts in other parts of the world have started to bring in sanctions for this behaviour and the sooner the UK courts follow suit, the better.

I agree Spero, I too hope there never will be.

O well Tyr, the government made a promise! Bet grandparents all over the land will be handing out the bunting now...

I have have seen quite a few cases where grandparents didn't get leave. And quite a few where they got residence. There is nothing magical about being a grandparent. Some people are shits, no matter how many branches to their family tree.

The problem is (I think we both agree) that this isn't really a legal problem. It is about the pain and hurt that follow a bitter end to a relationship. The courts do their best but they are not the best agency to deal with these kind of issues.

Spero,

I share your cynicism about the government and their promises which had probably more to do with pandering to a reliable voting demographic.
For all that, it did show a recognition of the value of GP's.
I'd agree in part with the assertion that it is not, in essence, a legal problem; it goes to the core of human behaviour. However, it is one that frequently requires the intervention of the courts.
It is an ugly truth that many parents, usually fathers (in our culture) are excluded from the lives of their children and that false allegations are used to justify this. If I lived in a muslim country, I would probably be attending court with mothers, as fathers almost invariably get custody there upon separation and, by all accounts, behave just as badly.
I have often wondered if a polygraph machine would make a valuable addition to the witness box........

hmmm. It is an ugly truth equally that fathers often fuck off without taking any responsibility for the offspring they chose to bring into the world.

I do not think the world is as black and white as you see it.

I can't see that polygraphs would do one iota of good. The real problem I encounter is not a load of blackhearted women who maliciously lie; we all come to believe the stories we tell ourselves.

Most of my female clients I am sure genuinely believe that it is in their child's best interests not to have the father directly involved. And the trouble is that often the father has behaved in at the very least a shabby and shameful way that gives fuel to her anger.

Shades of grey in everything I think.

Spero,

I don't know why you think I have a black and white view of anything. This whole thread got to this stage because i asked questions of the OP rather than just assume she/he/it was a "victim" I doubt that your female clients could be anything other than uninformed to consider no direct paternal involvement to be in the interests of a child. Some of them may genuinely believe their own BS but that is entirely differen.
They will probably have behaved just as badly themselves; frequently worse and compound their folly by denying a child a parent. That is where the courts need to assert their authority.
The disinterested dads you refer to at the start of your post are irrelevant as they don't generally seek contact. You might as well address the deadbeat mums who get themselves pregnant irresponsibly. Both are rather over used stereotypes.

I doubt that your female clients could be anything other than uninformed to consider no direct paternal involvement to be in the interests of a child. Some of them may genuinely believe their own BS but that is entirely differen.

The majority of cases that come before the courts wrt contact involve serious welfare issues eg drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence etc. Only 37% do not (source, MOJ research 2008). The fact that you refer to it as "believing their own bullshit" says more about you than about them, I'd argue...

''The majority of cases that come before the courts wrt contact involve serious welfare issues eg drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence etc. Only 37% do not (source, MOJ research 2008). The fact that you refer to it as "believing their own bullshit" says more about you than about them, I'd argue...''

Sorry to take issue with you but it is a sad truth that serious welfare issues are often cited, usually by the resident parent and therefore usually the mother, to deny or constrain contact to the other parent. It is also true that independent observers often do not corroborate such allegations.

Statistics in relation to family hearings are highly unreliable. It is also a sad truth and an indictment of Cafcass that they do not track cases and report on outcomes. Noone reliably knows therefore whether judicial decisions are truly in the ''child's best interests'' as noone has actually ever bothered to find out. All we have is anecdotal evidence, which as we see on here can be just as unreliable too.

oooo Tyr, why do I think you see the world in black and white terms?

Well, could it possibly be because you say things like this?

'genuinely believe their own bullshit'

'compound their folly'

'courts need to assert their authority'

'deadbeat mums who get themselves pregnant irresponsibly'

hmm. Last time I did biologly (admittedly a worryingly long time ago) it took both an egg and a sperm to make a baby. Difficult to see how you are pinning the blame entirely on the women here.

You clearly demonstrate very black and white, concrete views about the problem here. I am saying that nothing in life is that simple. Attempting to demonise one side or the other is silly and detracts from any good points you might be able to make.

I can't believe this is still going!

Think it's safe to assume that Tyr has an axe to grind here.

Oh and yes, last time I checked it was a physical impossibility for anyone (deadbeat or not) to get THEMSELVES pregnant. Unless you're a snail, possibly.

If I have an axe to grind, it is with those who willfully and knowingly make false allegations against a parent to justify excluding them from the life of a child.
Thank you Burningbra for pointing out the obvious in regard to those statistics.

tyr can I suggest that this is actually the least appropriate of places to be putting your views forward and that you'd be best place to start your own debate thread, either in Chat or in AIBU? It isn't fair to have hijacked the thread of a woman seeking help, nor to say 'she might be making it up' on this thread.

there is no doubt that there are cases where a RP will exaggerate or make things up - or place unreasonable limitations and boundaries on 'contact'. but you have really overdone it on this thread and it's not nice.

You do come across as highly provocative and a little bit smug, actually.

Tyr. You're a cunt. Simple as. Now you can pull me to pieces for my lack of intelligence, needing to swear and all that jazz - but there it is. You have deliberately hijacked the thread of someone in real trouble in a very calculated way.

Nice.

And speaking of sad... it's Bank Holiday Monday. Don't you have kids to see? No? Ah.

round of applause Baby very appropriate use of the C word - well blooming said!!! [clapping]

Hairylights,

?Not nice?? ?Provocative and smug?? I have been told to ?F* off? and had any number of other attacks made against me in this thread. Now someone calls me a "c*t" and you applaud.

In fact, Burningbra appears to be the only poster who has made a point without attacking me.
Pots and kettles?