Dispatches: family courts expose

[Misty9]

Is anyone watching? It's horrendous what goes on behind closed doors. Literally :(

No.. The mother isn't abusive. She's been accused of parental alienation of the father.. Which is the courts eyes, the only way to reverse that is to remove the children away from the mother who is supposedly causing them emotional harm and place them in the care of the alienated parent in an attempt to rebuild the relationship. It's barbaric.
I'm haunted by that clip of the police turning up at midnight tbh.

I'm haunted by that clip of the police turning up at midnight tbh.

You can hear the policeman saying that this is one of the worst things he’s done in 20 years in the job.

The fact that this is happening despite the fact that there is no real evidence that this is of benefit to the child and no research on the long term impact on the children is disgusting. It is child abuse by the State.

The fact the mother didn't see her kids for 8 months.. I actually can't believe that. I really can't.
I hope to god their father rots in hell.

I can't say too much as it would be very outing if I named the person - but when they referred to the 4 cases in the court of appeals and mentioned the Judges. I've actually had one of those judges preside over our case this year.. it would appear that he's been highly educated on domestic abuse now, as he described our case as extremely significant and serious domestic abuse and he couldn't ignore what the cafcass officer was saying in the hearing, which was that there shouldn't be any contact.
I feel for the woman who had him at that time and he made those awful comments.

Watched it on catch up earlier after seeing this thread. Harrowing viewing! I knew the system had issues but I didn’t realise how bad. Paedophiles being given access to children? Teenagers being forced out of their homes? It's horrific! They say it's for the children but clearly it's the judges who are, for some reason, sympathetic to parents who don’t get to see their kids. Disgusting.

If the father truly cared for the children wouldn't he do what's best for them?

I wish this was true, unfortunately there are many parents (usually fathers) who would rather use the court system to continue with their abuse despite this being not in the child’s interest. Courts allow it to happen. Any contact no matter how dangerous or damaging is deemed better than none.

The family court don't care about what is best for children. How on earth is it best for children to forcibly remove them from their safe parent in the middle of the night and place them in the care of the other parent WHOM they DO NOT want to see and have been very vocal about it. It beggars belief.

Remarkable program. End to end confirmation bias throughout. Almost incredible - but there it was.

What Dispatches failed to bring up is that the private legal sector feeds from the Family Court's undeniable inefficiencies. I've been going through a divorce for 3 years and the amount of money that family lawyers make precisely because of the inefficiency of the system is too good to change. And that is also why is NOT changing, because a huge amount of people benefit from it and is not in their interest to change it. It's called conflict of interests.

I find it incredible that people will listen to one side of the story and take it at face value.

Each of the cases mentioned was a court dispute - that’s the very definition of there being two different sides of the story!

In each of the cases mentioned, the judge will presumably have heard and agonised over all of the evidence. You did not!

@Cheshirewife - that is why there needs to be transparency.

I had heard of and of course been enraged by multiple cases of "parental alienation" applied in cases of DV so I was "looking forward" to this (not the right word). But I'm 25% through and I find the whole thing very obnoxiously presented so far. Does it get better?

The presenter is like nails on a chalkboard for me, very affected and melodramatic.

I don't know if this is just because they only had an hour but there are already so many other things I want her to ask or talk about. Like the therapist they spoke to about how awful PA is when it happens. Well, what separates it from cases where it's a trumped up charge? Are there telltale signs?

All the talk of family court being more public. How? I still don't think being able to access intimate details of their parents' separation is necessarily good for kids, so I wanted them to talk about what they could do. But it should still definitely happen.

The enforced removal was horrifying to watch as was the total ignoring of the son's wishes. But I also didn't fully understand the timescale? They were with their father for years? Why didn't they attend the short visits then as they must have been pretty young? It seemed like a very, very extreme reaction unless there was some form of abuse.

Those are my nitpicky thoughts, don't change how important the subject is or corrupt the system is. Like the woman being told she was alienating her children from their paedophile father! What the fuck!

@AngryMuppet

I had heard of and of course been enraged by multiple cases of "parental alienation" applied in cases of DV so I was "looking forward" to this (not the right word). But I'm 25% through and I find the whole thing very obnoxiously presented so far. Does it get better?

The presenter is like nails on a chalkboard for me, very affected and melodramatic.

I don't know if this is just because they only had an hour but there are already so many other things I want her to ask or talk about. Like the therapist they spoke to about how awful PA is when it happens. Well, what separates it from cases where it's a trumped up charge? Are there telltale signs?

All the talk of family court being more public. How? I still don't think being able to access intimate details of their parents' separation is necessarily good for kids, so I wanted them to talk about what they could do. But it should still definitely happen.

The enforced removal was horrifying to watch as was the total ignoring of the son's wishes. But I also didn't fully understand the timescale? They were with their father for years? Why didn't they attend the short visits then as they must have been pretty young? It seemed like a very, very extreme reaction unless there was some form of abuse.

Those are my nitpicky thoughts, don't change how important the subject is or corrupt the system is. Like the woman being told she was alienating her children from their paedophile father! What the fuck!

I imagine the point of the programme was to bring attention to the mess that is the family court system. People don't realise unless they go through it or know someone who has experienced it themselves. I agree that much more research needs to be done and much more discussion around the intricacies of it all. I do worry that it'll all just disappear back in to the background again..

There is significant and serious domestic abuse in my case.. I haven't yet been presented with the parental alienation card.. but no doubt it's going to happen...

The case where th siblings were removed was not in their best interests. Clearly the dad being controlling.

I hope that dad rots in hell.

[quote Stoolpigeon21]@Cheshirewife - that is why there needs to be transparency.[/quote]
What does transparency look like here ? Members of the public sitting at the back of the court. Local journalists perched waiting case after case for a tasty bite to tickle the "public interest" (like they do in the criminal magistrates court) or Ministry of Justice civil servants monitoring cases.

Wigan case on Bailli. Take something like this case, its likely that people could identify him and his family if reported in a local newspaper - the local clarion. What does Louise Tickle ...the journalist..actually want ?

@sawdustformypony

The Law Commission are calling for greater transparency.

section 12(1)(a) is the problem as it’s effect has been :

• to deter the media from attending hearings in the Family Court and to stifle media reporting of what happens in such hearings (including the reporting of good practice),
• to hamper the development of public interest journalism including legal blogging,
• to prevent parties (almost always parents, but sometimes children too) from complaining publicly about their treatment at the hands of the state,
• to prevent the correction of any inaccurate and tendentious reports which may be in circulation, and
• to prevent the judges and other professionals practising in the Family Court being held properly to account.

Children’s privacy is protected by other existing legislation

The privacy of children is protected by the non-identification provisions contained in section 97 of the Children Act 1989, and by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Law-Commission-Proposal.pdf

What I find ironic here is how you're all blaming the man for being controlling.

Are the courts really going to drag the children off their mother for no reason.

Yes they probably are rebornagain but nobody believes it unless they have experience of family courts.

An awful lot of what happens in family courts is determined by who has the deeper pockets. And if you are motivated by spite and not really bothered by the children's welfare it's a great new arena to abuse an ex.

One of the problems was we were shown scenarios but the details weren't allowed to be explained. The woman whose children were removed - that case would no doubt have had many attempts to have orders followed before it came to transfer of residency. She claimed they drifted apart. There was no suggestion her ex was abusive. It sounds to me like hostility between them and the kids may have been required to take sides and reject the Dad. The only time they do these forced removals is when it's alienation and it must have been proved to the Judge.

I know it looked horrific, but I'm aware that alienated children usually kick and scream and refuse to see the other parent.

The follow up to that though showed that they didn't settle with their Dad so it was too late for anything to improve for them. A mess.

The reason I think it was proven alienation was because the Mother wasn't allowed to see them for 8 months (to influence them?). Most transfers of residency still allow regular contact (sometime nearly 50/50 with the Mother).

But we just didn't get told the background.

We don't know if the Dad was as bad and anti the Mum or if he was a nice normal guy who just kept asking the court to see his children when they were witheld for long periods.

I also thought the presentation was annoying and sensationalised.

@HazelE123

One of the problems was we were shown scenarios but the details weren't allowed to be explained. The woman whose children were removed - that case would no doubt have had many attempts to have orders followed before it came to transfer of residency. She claimed they drifted apart. There was no suggestion her ex was abusive. It sounds to me like hostility between them and the kids may have been required to take sides and reject the Dad. The only time they do these forced removals is when it's alienation and it must have been proved to the Judge.

I know it looked horrific, but I'm aware that alienated children usually kick and scream and refuse to see the other parent.

The follow up to that though showed that they didn't settle with their Dad so it was too late for anything to improve for them. A mess.

The reason I think it was proven alienation was because the Mother wasn't allowed to see them for 8 months (to influence them?). Most transfers of residency still allow regular contact (sometime nearly 50/50 with the Mother).

But we just didn't get told the background.

We don't know if the Dad was as bad and anti the Mum or if he was a nice normal guy who just kept asking the court to see his children when they were witheld for long periods.

I also thought the presentation was annoying and sensationalised.

Something I've not thought about. It makes you wonder.

Would the programme not have a solicitor to do the fact checking??

@HazelE123

One of the problems was we were shown scenarios but the details weren't allowed to be explained. The woman whose children were removed - that case would no doubt have had many attempts to have orders followed before it came to transfer of residency. She claimed they drifted apart. There was no suggestion her ex was abusive. It sounds to me like hostility between them and the kids may have been required to take sides and reject the Dad. The only time they do these forced removals is when it's alienation and it must have been proved to the Judge.

I know it looked horrific, but I'm aware that alienated children usually kick and scream and refuse to see the other parent.

The follow up to that though showed that they didn't settle with their Dad so it was too late for anything to improve for them. A mess.

The reason I think it was proven alienation was because the Mother wasn't allowed to see them for 8 months (to influence them?). Most transfers of residency still allow regular contact (sometime nearly 50/50 with the Mother).

But we just didn't get told the background.

We don't know if the Dad was as bad and anti the Mum or if he was a nice normal guy who just kept asking the court to see his children when they were witheld for long periods.

I also thought the presentation was annoying and sensationalised.

This was something I thought about while watching. Certainly how little detail there was which made me think of different possibilities and not be sure.

I still think there had to have been a better time and manner to do it than dragging the children out of bed at night though, which I think would've been deeply distressing for anybody.

And their relationship didn't improve with their dad after living with him for years - was it because they were really THAT "alienated"?

With that said, I did somewhat the mother for sharing the footage to be honest. Her children were blocked out, but since we saw them later, it was very easy to figure out who they were and I think it wasn't fair on them to show it.

Are we thinking that there must have been a reason why the mum couldn't have seen her kids for 8 months?! Did the judge mess up and only took the dads feelings into consideration??