Can Twatbadger have access if he won't give contact details?

[UterusUterusGhali]

My charming STBXH has moved and changed his mobile number.
He is ranting about me using the dc as spies and he won't see the oldest one. (His Dsd)
Can I let them go with him if I can't contact him?
I'm very very uncomfortable about that.
His Smother has begrudgingly given his address.

I don't know what to do! I can't afford a solicitor.

I don't know, so don't rely on this - but I don't think it matters if his own barrister is related to him. Your legal counsel are supposed to be biased - they're there to represent you, and to be completely on your side. Having said that, judges are sympathetic to litigants in person and give them extra leeway so don't be too scared if it ever did come to that. The one thing you always need to remember is that the best interests of the children and seeing things from their perspective impresses the courts. They are actively suspicious of mentioning parental rights/wishes/needs/wants. As long as you stay focused on what they need and what is best for them, and do so honestly and even when it's painful for you personally, you can't go too far wrong.

This is a recent book to help people who need to self-represent, Family Courts Without a Lawyer. It's by a very good specialist children's barrister.

I would really, really recommend you post on Legal here first, though. Several family lawyers post regularly on MN and might be able to help you get started with suggestions for mediation. I do think it sounds like a residence order in your favour and clear contact arrangements might be a good thing. At the moment either one of you can just refuse to hand the kids back and then you'd need court to fix that. Clarity all round would be helpful.

My DD is a similar age to yours. My STBXH is her stepdad. He initially came for contact at the house and ignored/was rude to her, even though she tried to join in and be helpful. I insisted on contact out of the house, gave dd the choice to go, she said no, so I make sure we do something fun together while DS is away. Things got very acrimonious, and have not settled, so I would not be happy with her going now anyway, as I would not trust him to treat her properly. He did not behave well to her towards the end of the relationship. As I undrstand it, there is no legal requirement for contact for your DD, so think about whether she would be happier at home.

I'm not a particular fan of mps' offices, who can employ anyone they like with minimal training/knowledge and no accountability at all to do casework which in my experience is not subject to the same level of confidentiality or impartiality.

CAB does have robust training and reporting procedures. They obviously will sometimes get it wrong but any organisation will. If there is a recurring problem with your particular CAB (they are all independent charities) then you need to be complaining/reporting it not telling vulnerable people not to get advice there.

CAB is a well respected organisation with a long and established history and often, now legal aid is cut and JCP have stopped helping with forms, are someone's only port of call with some really difficult issues.

Offred, my Mum used to work in one. I know they perform a great service for people with very basic difficulties. But they are not suitable for family law, particularly children's law - it's just too specialised for a generalist advice service to be able to help to the required standard. Which is why I linked to another charity which could. It takes a minimum of 4 years on top of a non-law degree and 6 years including one to be a newly qualified solicitor; a CAB advisor can't compete with that kind of expertise. As the OP's ex has a family law barrister as a sister, Coram Legal Centre is a much better bet for her.

And I can't speak for all MP's constituency offices, but both the ones I've encountered have been brilliant, and employ extremely dedicated and very sharp staff. Though I wouldn't for a second advise anyone to go to them either, with such a case.

I don't need to complain about our local office any more. It's been closed, and funding transferred to an alternative provider.

as your dd isn't his dd I would just tell her she doesn't have to go and let that be an end to it.

Wrt your other two ds' I would tell him that either he gives contact details or you are going to withhold contact on the basis you fear he is an abduction risk. I would be inclined even to lodge this statement with a solicitor/the police and would give instruction to the school not to allow the children to go with him.

I am usually the first to absolutely be against the idea of withholding contact, but over my dead body would my ex have contact if he didn't give me contact details.

let him take you to court. I'm sure there was in fact a mn'er whose ex did this and was told that he had to provide contact details.

He's refusing to see the DSD. I appreciate the confusion as in later posts it's made clear she's also scared of going, but in the first post it says he won't see her at all, in context of accusing the OP of using them as spies. So that's perhaps a bit of a red herring, at this point.

Cab has changed massively in recent years regarding training. Yours obviously closed because it was failing to meet the standards required by the national organisation. MPs' caseworkers are often very dedicated yes, my boyfriend is one, however they are also not audited, regulated or checked and I know the procedures and policies are not robust and they are likely to take on casework which fits a political agenda.

Cab wouldn't simply give generalist advice. Many have family, housing, employment etc law specialist advisers now who are qualified solicitors but in any case it would not be good practice to give advice beyond their own limitations. They would however be able to signpost and refer to other local services and they'd be more likely to be able to provide comprehensive face to face support either from themselves or someone else locally.

I'm aware of the complexity of family (or any) law, I think you're perhaps unaware of how CAB has changed in terms of training and also specialisation.

Offred, I actually went to the local one with a view to volunteering, as I've a law degree myself and thought it might be a useful thing to do. The lack of awareness of their own limitations with regard to legal expertise/specialisation was one of the reasons I decided against doing it, after the presentation day. Giving poor advice is worse than none at all (though I agree that they also did do a lot of very helpful signposting work, and there was much emphasis on that). Talking to the MP's constituency office a year later, over a housing issue a member of my husband's staff was having, I mentioned that I'd not been confident with advising him to go to the CAB... and they groaned and said they'd lost count of how many people had come to them after being poorly advised, with their difficulties thereby compounded. So yes, it does sound like the local one had serious issues. Given they're often the first and last line of defence vulnerable people have, it worried me a lot. I agree the local office was probably a bad example - I certainly hope so! But it didn't close because it failed to meet the CAB's own centrally required standards. It closed because the local authority ceased funding it, and diverted that funding to another organisation. In other words, the robust auditing procedures weren't, it seems, robust enough. I'm going to contact the replacement charity's service when this baby is a bit bigger and explore what they do - they're more multi-agency and involve a range of other charities, but they do offer a core advice service as well.

I do still believe that the CAB is really helpful for less complex issues, and for more commercial areas of law where certainty is more important than flexibility. The problem with family law, and most especially children's law, is that each case turns on its own facts, and there's considerable discretion, so what exactly the law is is a lot trickier to define and I think you need an experienced practitioner to be able to advise competently. I'm sorry, but I simply don't think advising people to go to the CAB instead of a specialist children's legal centre is a good idea. It's great if larger CABs can afford to employ specialist children's law solicitors (and employment, as the law has moved so fast there since the Coalition took power and not to the employee's advantage), and it's certainly news to me that they can offer that level of excellence, but if they don't in the office local to the OP then do I feel Coram are going to be far more useful.

I appreciate that you seem to have a personal investment in the CAB, and again I think they do excellent work on things such as debt and housing, but I just don't think they're ideal for situations such as the OP's. It's too dependent on quality of advisor, really, in such a nebulous area of law. And while poor advice on an employment situation is bad, poor advice on child contact and residence could really be catastrophic.

The real issue though, IMO anyway, isn't the CAB's shortcomings or excellence. It's the removal of legal aid from vulnerable, lower-income families in very high conflict situations. An advice charity shouldn't have to fill that gap.

It's hardly advice to go to CAB instead that I was offering. What I was objecting to was the smear against the CAB organisation which I think was unjustified and unhelpful not just to the op but more generally. I don't see why it was necessary to make the point that Coram would more than likely be able to offer more specialist advice. That is simply a fact. However, Coram can realistically only offer a telephone service nationally. CAB (or the replacement) would offer a face to face service.

Coram and other organisations like them are useful in the same way ACAS is for employment disputes but CAB can potentially help in a myriad of ways including signposting to local free services, help with forms for court, specialist advisers if they have them etc. CAB would probably signpost to Coram but often people need more than just a telephone helpline.

CABs are run independently in local areas so there will be geographical differences in what they offer. Perhaps ours is just really good but I do object to the whole lot being smeared based on one negative anecdotal experience supported by the views of a competitor who is likely to be biased.

Whatever my or your local experience CAB is likely to be better than an MP's office as it's audited and structured whereas MPs can run their offices pretty much however they like.

Either way, I know it is irrelevant to this thread. I just felt it was really important to challenge the smear on the organisation which I feel is unfair and based on limited info.

I mean I don't see why the smear was necessary in order to give the advice.

Offred, someone offering a different opinion to yours is not thereby "smearing". And my experience has been that the MP's constituency offices can provide a swift and effective resolution to problems unavailable by other means (not with court related issues, obviously, but certainly local government administration). Frankly I wouldn't approach the CAB for help with any complex problems, no. I'd look for a charity that specialised in the area in question. Nor do I see why a face-to-face meeting is more helpful, on the whole. Advice is dependent on the quality of advisor, not geography. (Obviously if there's complex paperwork, that alters.)

Can I ask what your own connection to the CAB is? You seem to be taking this very personally.

I've not been particularly secretive about my association with CAB and have written on other threads about it. I'm currently training to do gateway assessments. I'm doing a law degree too.

I think maybe you should re-read your posts. I'm not being particularly personal about CAB, you are. Based on your very limited experience you sought to advise anyone nationally to avoid them. This is what I'm trying to challenge.

I've acknowledged there are geographical differences and that any organisation is subject to failures. I don't think CAB can always or even often give detailed specialist advice, that is not what I'm saying about them, although they do now have some specialist advisers in some places.

Face to face meetings are exceptionally helpful with filling in and getting official papers like court forms or benefits applications. Also, not everyone is as knowledgable and capable as you, and CAB can be extremely helpful in knowing what is available locally and nationally and signposting to those orgs. They are aware of Coram for example. I'm pretty knowledgeable about the local area but I'd still think it worth asking CAB about what there is to help with my specific issue because I don't see what the point is in not doing that.

You're the one advising that someone deliberately avoid using CAB, based on what I feel is an unfair and limited experience. I would be wary of using the mp, although caseworkers (as I've previously said) are often dedicated and conscientious advocates, I feel they are often by subject to high levels of supervision and I have confidentiality concerns.

They may also pick and choose cases to prioritise based on political agendas and may put pressure on constituents to air their cases in public for free publicity. They don't necessarily only help for the sake of the person receiving the help or because of wider interest in social policy and citizen's rights.

Often not subject to supervision