A vegetarian mother who refused to let her ex-partner see their son for more than a year in case he fed him meat has been told she risks losing custody of the five year old.
At the Civil Appeal Court in London, the unnamed woman, from Bristol, also claimed the man had put their son at risk by not making him wear a seatbelt and had even used the wrong name for him on one occasion.
But Lord Justice Underhill insisted that fathers had an important role to play in children’s lives, the Telegraph reports. He told the woman she must comply with an earlier order to let her ex-partner see their son,. If she failed to do so, the boy would be sent to live with his father.
The judge refused her permission to appeal the earlier contact order, which had allowed her man overnight and weekend visits with the boy.
Her legal team had claimed that regular contact with the father after more than a year could cause both the boy and his mother emotional harm.
Lord Justice Underhill acknowledged bitterness between the couple but told the woman that she now had a “last opportunity” to remain her son’s primary carer.
He said:
“I do, for this five-year-old boy’s sake, wish the mother and the father the best in doing their best for their son.”
So, at a critical age of the boy’s life (4-5 years) the mother has defied the court for over a year for a ridiculous reason and STILL retains primary custody.
This clearly shows how good (as in weak as s**t) contact orders are. If she wanted to prevent him seeing the kid and was a bit more savvy with her reasons she could drag this out indefintely…
I’ve just told my mother I’m taking her to court for abuse. I’ve lost count of how may times she has used the wrong name for me and more often that not it’s the pet dog’s name. How bad is that!!!!
“Lord Justice Underhill insisted that fathers had an important role to play in children’s lives”
Does Lord Justice Underhill also insist that mothers have an important role to play? Hmmm, I wonder.