Private members Bill going through parliament to bring changes to family law

[GenderEqualityAdvocate]

The MP and ex barrister Suella Fernandes has brough a private members bill to parliament callign for wholesale changes to family law.

Would be interested in your opinions. Is this a good thing or not? She is pushing for equal parenting and enforceable contact orders which I guess means punishments for predominantly women who withhold contact.

Unfortunately contact is always linked to money because the current system links it.

Sorry posted too soon.
The current CM system definitely makes a "pay for view" culture.

It does? What about the parents with 0 contact who pay 25% of everything to support children they are barred from seeing?

I do understand "burden of proof". But it appears that burden of proof seems to be higher for abuse cases. Most of the cases don't get anywhere near court because the victims aren't believed when they report it.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/shana-grice-murdered-stalking-fined-for-wasting-police-time-michael-lane-trial-lewes-crown-court-a7637196.html as an example. This is one of many. Not an exception. Thankfully most of them don't end up in the death of the victim. Just years of pain and fear.

Why do you people continually want to steer this back to child support? Do you not think it is an issue that so many men do not pay for their children and the burden is left to the mother? Poverty is why children do not thrive as well in single-parent families. Take that out of the equation and children have similar opportunities and successes as two-parent families. When a father leaves - they often take the money with them.

allegations in the family courts which need no factual basis but can then see children removed from mothers and fathers? That's really not true. The burden of proof is different (beyond reasonable doubt in crim vs balance of probabilities in civil/family) but they don't simply work on the basis of allegations. If you look at the links I posted above you will see some of the detail of how fact finding works in domestic violence cases. They are working on the basis of evidence, just on a different burden of proof. No doubt one can criticise the way in which that is done and advocate for improvements in the process but it is entirely wrong to say that decisions are made on the basis of allegations with no factual basis.

It sounds if you have had a difficult experience in the family courts and you have said that you've been to a F4J meeting. Are you testing your views on all of this against wider, objective evidence?

The current CM system definitely makes a "pay for view" culture. what makes you say that everytimeref?

Tell me then what happens with an allegation that is proven to be false in a criminal trial and an allegation that is proven to be false in a family court hearing?

In the criminal case the accuser can expect a CPS prosecution, maybe immediate sanction from the judge, possible libel or slander proceedings.

In the family court?

I agree there should be sanctions for not playing your part in care of children.

I've had to give up paid work 3 times now due to childcare issues, whilst STBXH gets on with his career. I've just organised some training to fit in with when he has the kids…and now he has given me a list of the dates that he isn't going to be able to fulfil his obligations, skuppering my plans. My STBXH is intent on keeping me in poverty, as financially abusive ex's do. There is no consequence of that for him, only the children and myself and that is actually far more harmful than them not seeing him (they do, I never withhold contact).

I've read so many posts on mumsnet where ex has been a domestic abuser and there is a contact order with the kids, and the resident parent has concerns and child doesn't want to go. So in that situation the mother would have to send the kid to an abusive situation or end up in jail? There is no legal aid for family cases unless domestic abuse can be proven (extremely difficult) and single mothers are overwhelmingly on low incomes. What would happen in these cases?

I think this sort of thing should have been written by someone who actually has experience of family law from the mothers side.

She sits on parliamentary committees, she is a barrister, she is female but none of that is good enough? You only want a mother so that the law can be skewed in your favour?

I think she is prefect. Never married and so therefore never divorced. She comes with minimal baggage and can be subjective.

She comes with minimal baggage and can be subjective. Subjective? Well that would suit you given that all your views on here have all been subjective. (Suella is her name btw - not "she", like the cat's mother)

Have you been barred from seeing your children GEA? Have you had accusations of DV against you? Just wondering what your angle was here.

Why? You want to know my background story? Then once you know that you will continually revert to using it against me?

No allegations of DV. My ex alleged I was mentally ill. I had to undergo a psychiatric assessment to clear me of all mental illness before I could see my children. My ex suffered no sanction as a result of making a false allegation that saw me removed from my children's lives.

What incentive is there to allow more contact? The more contact the less CM payable. If a RP stops contact the CM is still payable. Payment is enforceable but contact not.

I agree that the more common problem is the leaving partner not providing financial support and/ or enough contact with the child. I like the American system where non-payers are penalised through the courts and can lose their driving licences.

Did she make a false allegation? Or was she worried for the safety of her children?

You've admitted on another thread you think you have a mental illness so I'm confused as to why you think she made a false allegation?

If a contact order is in place and the RP reneges on that then it is enforceable. If the NRP reneges on it then it isn't enforceable.

Thoughtfox the CSA and CMS take non payers through the courts and do much the same. They take driving licenses, wind their businesses up and imprison them. I have accompanied a friend who got summoned to court for non payment.

My ex made a false allegation. Two psychiatrists have vouched for the fact that I am safe and have no mental illness and no history of mental illness. I pose no risk to mother or children. The allegation was enough though to see a CAFCASS report cut me out of the children's lives and now they cannot find a means by which to re-introduce me back into the childrens lives without considerable oppostion from their mother.

You've admitted you have a mental illness. Your ex didn't make a false allegation - she asked for a psychiatric assessment. And if she believes that you are a danger to your children she has a right to fight for their rights.

Why is maintenance irrelevant? Studies show that poverty is the factor that can cause poorer outcomes for children in single parent households which are otherwise on a par with outcomes from 'together' families. If we are concerned about the welfare of children financial support is one of the first areas we should be focusing on.

It is also relevant to decisions that the resident parent may have to make after separation which you are criticising. If a mother has the sole financial burden of raising the child then she may well have to move over 100 miles away to secure a better job or to be near family who can provide childcare.

Your view seems to be to punish mothers who withhold contact as it is bad for the children but not punish fathers who don't turn up despite that also being bad for the children. Also prevent mothers from moving away even if that is the only way they can make ends meet but ignore the issue of financial support for the child because it is apparently not connected in any way.

If you want to say that withholding contact is abusive to a child then you also need to be prepared to say that non payment of support is also abusive. If the RP didn't provide a roof, clothing, food, they would be prosecuted for neglect. But NRPs can opt out with impunity.

I have never admitted to mental illness. I might have a personality disorder of sorts but that is not the same thing and is not good enough reason to bar somebody from being a parent.

Stich, people who are wiser than you and I decided to remove maintenance from the family courts. They want it dealt separately and not to be abused by law firms out to make money.

As for moving away then yes if a woman can really make a compelling case then it should be granted. But right now the almost default position is that Resident parents get to move overseas as any order to stop them would be a breach of their human rights.

I agree non payemnt of child support is abusive. Contact denial is abusive. I was mentioned child support and have been trying to steer discussion away from it.

Like all these f4j men you conveniently ignore the reality for most women and children and the complications of abusive parents just so long as it suits your narrative and gives you what you want.
Despite the links and explanations by pp who have done a better job than I could of pointing out the flaws in this.

Anyone proposing a bill like this should have much more insight into family courts in my opinion.

I really hope this doesn't become law, it sounds dangerous. Just not thought through at all.

BTW, untreated personality disorders can be far more dangerous and disruptive to children than mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bi polar.

"I do not have the same moral compass as most people. I try my best not to harm people but yes I display traits of narcissism and I am all too aware of that." -GenderEqualityAdvocate

Narcissists make spectacularly shitty parents. If you are borderline there is some hope, get a (very) good therapist and be prepared to put in a Herculean amount. I'll make no bones about it won't be easy.

If you are a full blown narcissist I'm afraid it's game over. There isn't really much that can be done. It's quite a tragedy really as likely not your fault but how you were parented. Nevertheless Narcissism is a notoriously challenging diagnosis as few narcissists will self present, and often see nothing whatsoever wrong in their condition.

I can quite imagine a diagnosis that can escape a few court appointed professionals. Now I am no mental health professional and an armchair diagnosis is impossible from a few posts on the internet, but I feel a great pity for narcissists. They are missing a fundemental quality that defines the human condition. What they perceive as a weakness in the rest of us is actually a source of greater insight into life.

I've met a few narcissists and they can be the life and soul of the party, but only briefly, scratch that superficiality and they are desperately sad and weak individuals who lack the mental agility to engage in any topic in any great depth. They are all flash with nothing of real substance.

Bad childhoods have left them as nothing more than hollowed out parasitic husks that latch on to other stronger people and drain them of time, emotion and vitality whilst providing fuck all of consequence themselves. In short not people have any business around children.

As far as courts go I think more funding to better understanding narcissism so we can root them out and keep them as far from children as possible.

A personality disorder is often be seen as worse than a mental 'illness' in terms of access OP.

That is because a mental illness is generally seen to be treatable/manageable with medication, whereas personality disorders are more difficult to treat and often require years and years of therapy in order to make changes in behaviour. Also, in many areas of the country it is difficult to get support for personality disorders.

And no, don't want a mother so that things are from a mothers side- that isn't necessary. Someone with experience of family law, not criminal law. And actually a solicitor would be more of a helpful person to help with drafting such a bill as a barrister has very little contact with the people that they represent.

F4J has a bad reputation. I recall a number of incidents going back over the years which painted a picture of a bunch of unpleasant and sometimes dangerous men who were typically having problems getting what they wanted due to a history of DV, EA and/or unstable behaviour. There is a type, not as rare as one would hope, who see both wives and children as possessions and who become enraged beyond reason when divorce gives them a sharp reality check.

Interestingly, in the Wikipedia entry on the organization MN features. In 2012, F4J staged a naked protest inside the Oxford Street branch of retailer Marks and Spencer in order to protest the shop's advertising on parenting website Mumsnet, which F4J believes "promotes gender hatred".

There's also a this 2014 article from The Independent which lays out a pattern of extremely bizarre and threatening behaviour by F4J members.

OP, just to let you know - being brought up by someone with the PD you obviously have is horrendous. It's also a psychiatric disorder, so you're either lying or wrong and either way I have no doubt your child better off without you there given your hatred of women.