Tearful father withdraws contact application after 7 year dispute

Family Law|February 15th 2018

“This afternoon, a wholly deserving and tearful father has asked the court for permission to withdraw his application to enable him to spend time with his son.  It is poignant that that application comes before me just six days before Christmas.”

So begins the short judgment of His Honour Judge Bellamy in the case Re J (A Child – Intractable Contact). The case is a story of frustration and failure: the frustration of a father who should have had contact with his son despite the best efforts of the mother to thwart him, and failure of the family justice system to ensure, both for his sake and the sake of the child, that he did have such contact.

As I said, the judgment is short, so we don’t have very many details of the case. However, we do know:

  1. That the parents began a relationship in 2010.
  2. That the child, ‘J’, was born in December of that year.
  3. That the parents separated in January 2011, J remaining with his mother.
  4. That “J has been at the centre of an intractable, high conflict dispute between his parents since he was 3 months old.”
  5. That the mother alleged that the father had physically and sexually abused J. These allegations were considered by Judge Bellamy at a fact-finding hearing in 2015. At the end of the hearing, he concluded that the mother had not satisfied him that any of her allegations were true. On the contrary, he found that the mother had emotionally abused J. He made this finding having regard in particular to the frequency of the mother’s interrogations of J, to her video and audio recording of J and to her past unilateral decisions to withhold contact on a whim.
  6. A hearing took place in September 2016, at which the parents did agree that J should see his father. A contact order was made, including an agreed provision for the father to have alternate weekend staying contact with J from Friday until Sunday.
  7. The contact got off to a bad start (we are given no details), as a result of which the mother applied to vary the order. The father made a cross-application to enforce it.
  8. At a hearing in November 2016 the father made an application to the court to withdraw the proceedings. Judge Bellamy did not think that this would be in J’s best interests, and therefore refused the application.
  9. The father renewed his application for leave to withdraw the proceedings, and this application went before Judge Bellamy last December. The father was not represented.

It is important to understand the father’s reasons for his application. These were explained by Judge Bellamy:

“The father’s position today, as I have already indicated, is that he still wishes to withdraw his application.  He takes that position not because he does not love his son – indeed, I am in absolutely no doubt that he loves J a great deal – or that he has lost interest in this litigation.  These proceedings are emotionally distressing for the father.  He is immensely frustrated that, as he would see it, this mother has deliberately flouted orders made by this court and the court has appeared powerless to do anything about it.  As he rightly points out, two years ago the court made a clear finding that J’s mother has emotionally abused J, yet the court has not been able to deliver an outcome that helps J to recover from that abuse or prevent that abuse from continuing into the future.”

He continued:

“From the father’s perspective, continuation of these proceedings may well do more harm than good so far as J is concerned.  After seven continuous years of litigation – litigation which has singularly failed to enable him to have a meaningful relationship with his son – it is time to give up the fight and, although he does not put it in these emotive terms, to admit defeat.”

Judge Bellamy concluded:

“I am acutely conscious of the fact that, in allowing this father’s application to withdraw these proceedings, I am taking a step which may not be in the best long-term interests of this little boy.  However, with both misgivings and regret, I accept that it is appropriate to accede to the father’s request to withdraw his application.”

The case will no doubt be seen by some as a damning indictment of the family justice system, which clearly failed this father (who, as Judge Bellamy pointed out, had done more than many fathers would do to try to establish a positive relationship with his son) and, more importantly, failed this child. The question, of course, is: what else could have been done? Unfortunately, the judgment does not give enough details to answer that question in any detail, although the obvious candidate for criticism is the habitual issue of delay in dealing with the case. There may also have been an issue of failure to enforce an order, although the father did of course indicate that he wanted to withdraw shortly after the September 2016 order was made.

Whatever, the case is a tragedy for father and son alike.

The full report of the case can be found here.

Photo by Stefano Corso via Flickr

Author: Stowe Family Law

Comments(54)

  1. Nick Langford says:

    On 11 November 2003 a wholly deserving father left my court in tears having been driven to abandon his battle for contact with his seven year old daughter D.

    Munby, Re D (Intractable Contact Dispute: Publicity) [2004] EWHC 727 (Fam).

    On 21 July 2010 a wholly deserving father left my court in tears having been driven to abandon his battle to implement an order which I had made on 4th January 2010 that his son, S, now aged 12, should move to live with him.

    Bellamy, Warwickshire County Council v TE & Ors [2010] EWHC B19.

    This afternoon, a wholly deserving and tearful father has asked the court for permission to withdraw his application to enable him to spend time with his son. It is poignant that that application comes before me just six days before Christmas.

    Bellamy, Re J (A Child – Intractable Contact) [2017] EWFC B103 (19 December 2017).

    • Paul Massey says:

      This is interesting.

      In Re TE and SH, (CASE No. NU10C00043 at Coventry District Registry) the same judge, HH Judge Bellamy begins his judgement as follows:

      “On 21 July 2010 a wholly deserving father left my court in tears [my emphasis] having been driven to abandon his battle to implement an order which I had made on 4th January 2010 that his son, S, now aged 12, should move to live with him. The order of 21 July, made by consent, brings to an end litigation relating to S which has been before the court almost continuously since June 1999.”

      These cases bring the family court system into disrepute. When are we going to get these cases handled robustly?

  2. NWDave says:

    What a terrible and awful situation. What is even more upsetting is this is a common occurrence and crops up all the time where the parent with care usually the mother not only flouts a court order but also emotionally abuses the child in the process which I think is parent alienation.
    Two things –
    When and what organisation is going to address this behaviour not just for, in this case Dad but also the child!??
    I wonder if the judge would have been as lenient if it were Dad that had broken the court order??

    I myself am in a similar situation where Mum not only emotionally abuses our daughter but also uses the police making false aligations where the police make no further action against me – just to build some kind of case. She prevents our daughter from free contact even by SMS and has sent her to practically any agency that will listen only for our daughter to be discharged with no further action.

    The sad thing is most of this is due to her having to see a reduction in my CMS payments… who suffers – the child…

    So I have to ask in this world of equality (and rightly so) – when is someone going to balance the scales in situations like this as this can’t be right – for the sake of our future generations this must stop… what lesson is it teaching our children?

    I’d be happy to add my voice and support to any such action. I’ve even discussed this with my local MP Mark Menzies but more need to be done…

  3. Lee says:

    This is very worrying and sad and mirrors my case thus far. I fear a similar situation happening with me.

  4. Andy says:

    This is nothing new.. All along the family justice system is no where near clear in its support for equal quality of child care.
    This is a prime example of how one parent with care can and will ignore all court orders of contact with the child also the cost implications of the non resident parent who is fighting just to get some normality of life… Sadly this is never the case and Admiration is given to the father in his attempts to seek support from the so called justice system.. This is where it fails in all case of the non resident..
    Simple court order turns it into a court battle…

  5. Lee says:

    And we wonder why the male suicide rate is 4 to 1 woman in this country and why there so many mental health issues with boy and men alike. Well, here is prime example people, wake up!

    • Mr T says:

      It’s generation on generation of alienated children. These (mostly) women are alienated children or children of single-parent families themselves, mostly women as the primary caregiver.

      • Shaun Buchanan says:

        change.org/p/boris-johnson-mp-most-capable-parent-to-gain-full-custody-of-children-in-relationship-breakdown?recruiter=26062742&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive

        Lets change this mockery of justice together Dad’s we can burn this biased corrupt system to the ground and build a better world.

  6. Mr T says:

    This happens day in day out these mentally disordered mothers need to be made an example of for the sake of these children who are clearly being abused psychologically and emotionally by this mother. The courts have failed him and the child massively. They are not fit for purpose. It needs to change.

  7. Stitchedup says:

    Par for the course I would say. Women and their solicitors play the same game day-in day-out….., keep a log of fictious and over-exagerated domestic incidents, call the police at any opportunity and build-up a history of logged calls, work on the children and convince them that dad is a monster… they don’t know it but he is because mummy says so right?. Use the fictious log of domestic incidents and calls logged with the police to secure legal aid, a non mol, occupation of the family home, and custody of the children (old term but you know what I mean). Dad is now out of the picture so even more opportunity to work on the kids and completely alienate him, withold children’s contact with the father because you know the courts won’t enforce any contact orders, but they will enforce non-mols, so continue with the allegations against the father and do your utmost to have the father found in breach of the non-mol, secure a conviction and possibly jail time for him. Father has probably by now lost his job, is completely alienated from his children who he hasn’t seen for several years, has turned to drink and contemplates ending it all. Mother’s boyfriend moves into family home, kids get a new daddy and all is cushty for mum…. it’s a no brainer!!!! the family courts and criminal courts provide support all the way because men are bad and women are good…Voila!!… there’s even a “for dummies” book in existence that explains exactly what steps women need to take to accomplish this; alternatively, just speak to the divorced women you meet at the school gates and they’s tell you all you need to know…… Go for it girls!!!

    • Mr T says:

      This is identical to what’s happening to me the only thing you missed in your absolutely spot-on rendition of mid 30’s western women who “want it all” and actually just resort to what can only be described as paternity fraud, child abuse and legalised extortion. Was the debt that has mounted up and the years of emotional torture and domestic abuse by proxy (the proxies being the police, courts, women’s aid, child contact, magistrates courts, solicitors etc).

  8. Arno Visagie says:

    This is the rape of fathers, children and their relationship. Only one way to combat rape. SPEAK OUT!. Tell your story on the internet, without being fearful of being victimized or transgressing the law. SPEAK OUT! If you love your children you will. SPEAK OUT!

  9. Vincent McGovern says:

    Nick Langford’s excellent post above gets straight to the central failing of the family court system in the UK. Far too often when there is ‘intractable hostility’ which usually means a resident parent who abuses the child/children because she (95%of RP) wants to use the child to hurt and destroy the non resident father. After fathers have been stitched up by highly gendered local authority DV agencies, Cafcass (their DV perpetrator programmes are for males only) LASPO, and legal aid gender discrimination, he then finds out the court is not too concerned with the ‘welfare of the child being paramount.’ If it were, it would enforce it’s own orders.

    Bellamy has too much form here. He is not alone.

  10. Yvie says:

    When there is a court order in place up until the age of 16, the Courts should still enforce that order. When the children get to around the age of 13, a determined alienated can sever the bond between children and parent knowing full well that the Courts will take no action. Despite my son having a shared residence order my eldest grandchild was alienated at 15 – he said that he had the worst father ever. My second grandchild was alienated at 13 – he said that his stepfather was a far better father than his own father. Their mother said that she wouldn’t be a good mother if she made them see their father against their will.,

  11. Peter Davies says:

    In public law, when the relationship between a parent and child is to be severed ( let’s be honest, that is what indirect contact amounts to ) there is a detailed welfare analysis and it must be shown that the threshold of harm has been crossed.
    This is a private law case. The father / child relationship has effectively been severed when the mum’s behaviour may have possibly crossed the threshold of harm. This just does not make sense. Furthermore, the judge’s dithering has facilitated the further abuse that would have increased the likelihood of the threshold being crossed. The normal range parent is being excluded whilst the emotionally abusive parent is being rewarded.
    It would probably satisfy the Wednesbury test for irrationality I.e absolutely crazy.
    All alienating behaviours are abusive and this decision has rewarded emotional abuse whilst punishing a decent parent. It is impossible to rationalise such a thoroughly shameful decision that has failed to ‘grapple’ with contact and appears to have avoided using any of the tools available to enforce contact.
    What a marvellous message to send out to emotionally abusive parents.

    • Cameron Paterson says:

      Which decision are you referring to?

      • Stitchedup says:

        I imagine it’s the decision to allow the father to drop his case?? Let’s not play games here Cameron, this is a disastrous situation for the father and a sad example of how uk family law plays out in the vast majority of cases where fathers are doing their upmost to maintain a healthy and meaningful relationship with their children. It’s a complete disgrace.

      • Peter Davies says:

        Hi Cameron. I am referring to this case and the line of jurisprudence leading to it. I’ll gladly provide an article substantiating a perfectly coherent line of reasoning if you wish. I think there is a growing body of evidence to demonstrate that the lines taken by Bellamy HHJ and Munby P are objectionable and lack a properly argued evidence base. The court’s handling of serious alienation cases has reached the stage where it is completely ad hoc and arbitrary. Children are now being failed. Please contact me if you want a to hear a topical and cogent argument on this. I will gladly oblige. It really does need to be brought to a head.

        • Cameron Paterson says:

          In this ruling at least, Judge Bellamy was simply granting the father’s wish to withdraw. I’m not sure the Courts could have forced him to continue

          • Peter Davies says:

            Having been an alienated parent I fully empathise with the trauma this Dad must have been put trough with the endless prevarication of the judges and their abject failure to use the judicial tools at their disposal to make effective decisions and enforce them.
            You say that HHJ Bellamy was only granting the father’s wishes but he had already refused and there were other alternatives that this judicially illiterate judgment blatantly ducks. For example, after the defective, s 37 report – where the social worker failed to acquaint herself with the case files (it is only a few weeks since another social worker was criticised for doing precisely the same in F v H and Anor)-
            Having already made a finding of emotional harm it was still open for the judge to make a s.31 direction but he clearly preferred the prospect of even more delay, further emotional harm and the inevitable self-fulfilling prophesy that either the very vulnerable father would be bullied towards the door or the child would be past the point of no return. The fact that HHJ Bellamy already had the introduction to his inevitable judgment available to cut and paste from one judgment to another on his PC does speak volumes.
            The recent history of intractable cases is not a very good one and the capacity of judges to learn from mistakes is highly variable.
            I will gladly write that article if you wish because it really is high time that these matters are fully exposed to the glare of daylight.

  12. A Mother says:

    I totally feel for the father. The family law does the bidding of the female. Sorry I cannot call these females mothers as they do not deserve the title. My son and I are in the same situation we have lost contact with the child thanks to the female. You see blog after blog of the same story. What can be done to STOP this. How can we combat the prejudices of the family court, social services, the police and Cafcass. How can we protect these vulnerable children from the one person who causes more damage when the authorities see that person as the protective parent when in fact they are the abuser

  13. Phil says:

    When one parent continually breaks court orders, the courts need to enforce orders or if they continue to be in contempt change the residency of the child.

  14. C says:

    My son is filling out the court papers today, This is such a familiar story. The Mother did not turn up for mediation and living in the same town she constantly threatens my son with harrasement if heddare speak to her, yet she walks past our front door with my son’s ,son to taunt him.
    It needs to change there needs to be consequencesfor these Mothers as if is an unfair game for totally irresponsible mothers.

  15. FamiliesNeedFathers says:

    “a damning indictment of the family justice system”

    Absolutely it is. This is not a one-off, it happens thousands of times each year. Most such judgements don’t get published, but being invisible does not mean they are not there. This father would have gone to hell and back for seven years. The court would have had plenty of opportunity to intervene over all those years, whilst his son was still young and not been enmeshed by his mother in a process of denigration. Many dads give up a lot sooner and who can blame them?

    The courts must use the powers they have before years go by. They need to change residency, possibly on an interim basis. Neither should it be necessary for them to prove contempt to a criminal threshold of proof in order to have enforcement action. They put children into care on far, far lower thresholds. Some 6,000 applications a year are made to family courts for enforcement. Fewer than 1% result in enforcement action.

    They system did not just fail this father, but thousands of them, year in, year out… and let’s not forget, it has failed even more children. History will not judge this country well in the abuse its family justice inflicts on its children.

  16. Simon says:

    I find it unbelievable that the Judge won’t enforce the order non compliance should be dealt with as a short sharp shock of a weeks custodial sentence. I suspect that would stop any non-compliance very quickly. It’s a great piece from the journalist on this though

  17. Andrew says:

    When failure to give contact as ordered is treated as seriously as breach of a non-mol there will be fewer cases like this tragedy. Suspended sentence the first time, activate it the second.

  18. Seriously says:

    I would echo those above comments that this situation is all too frequent, though rarely one gets the publicity as this case has , Family Court is too secretive, and the children suffer far far to often to be left with the unwell and/ or controlling parent because of courts failure to ACT as they should and remove the perpetrator away from the child .

  19. H says:

    I’m another non-resident parent wanting the child abuse from the court-ordered custodial parent to stop over the years.

    Same result, the custodial parent has breached countless court orders and over 30 more of her own orders through her privately-funded legal teams that the court had approved of since 2016, yet rather than admit its mistakes to end the abuse of children and enforce the law, the Sussex Family Law Courts rather save-face and more aggressively push for more years of child abuse to continue (child alienation, physical and emotional violence, medical child abuse for wanted sympathy for the Mum, deflection of blame from maternal abuse of her own child and additional state benefits rewards paid by tax-payers for Mum to spend on legal fees to secure their children has no relationship with their fully capable Father; ironically 80% of tax payers are men as reported on .gov’s website.

    This inflated ‘war on children’ bubble by our liberal society has to pop soon when the media’s stereotypical world view forced upon the masses, the shaming if we don’t submit to their idiocies and disregard that the last 3 years, children from abused families surveyed were 5 times more likely to admit that the parent that (emotionally or sexually) abused them was their mother. If you’re curious, a non-parent wastwice as likely to abuse them than the father and physical abuse was almost equal between all three. When will the media, academia, social workers, police, courts, CAFCASS and masses listen to the real victims instead of treat them like social pariahs? It has to be soon!

  20. Richard Nixon says:

    What is needed is for judges to reserve residency from the contact denier to the contact denied. There are example case of this happening but not enough across the county

  21. Mr T says:

    You previously asked for ways to improve Family law. The answers lie right here.

    Breaches of Child Arrangement Orders (regardless of gender!)
    Compulsory
    1st breach suspended sentence
    2nd Breach a week custodial sentence

    Very close scrutiny of non-molestation orders to limit contact.

    Unlink CMS being linked to overnight stays for NRP – which not only incentivises but financially rewards RP for their alienating behaviours.

    Get a tick list of behaviours that match the patterns mentioned above.

    Mediation refused or no resolution.
    Non-molestation order (previously tried harassment?)
    Previously hindered contact before Court Order – unilaterally deciding contact.
    Any allegations of DV \ DA.

    All the above need testing for factual solid evidence as most of these fall down on substance because there is literally one use for these allegations – to block or sever contact.

  22. dc says:

    The real issue is being missed because we are all so focused on getting our time with our children!! That is important but not the main issue!!! It is time to turn the system on itself!
    The real issue here is the fact that the court is doing nothing about the CHILD ABUSE that they know is happening and they are enabling it to continue!!!
    The abuse of the children deserves the courts full attention. Why is it being accepted? Accepting the abuse and enabling the abuse to continue should be the focus of all of our cases! Not how much time we should have… That will come naturally if we make them accountable.
    What would they do if we all stood up said “Although I have rights as a father/mother to have meaningful relationship with my offsping I am willing to put that aside at the moment too highlight the fact the other party is psycologically/physically etc abusing said child and that the welfare and legal systems are enabling the abuse to continue with non regard for the childs welfare whatsoever”.
    Little naive maybe but someone has to stand up and set a precedent…

    • Mr T says:

      I cannot disagree with this. This is exactly how I feel EVERY time I’m in court and nobody mentions the little girl that is being controlled by her mother and Cafcass and the courts are not only allowing it but rewarding it with unlimited full contact and parental severance!

      It needs to stop.

    • Phil says:

      I agree with your comments, the courts and CAFCASS have little or no interest in parental alienation, the child abuse etc as they don’t really know how to deal with it. In my case, I took a different tactic and focused the court’s attention to the fact that mother had no respect for them, treated them with contempt by frequently breaking orders and that any order they make would be broken so really the have only one option, change of residency and I would uphold any order they placed on me regarding contact. My son now lives with me.

      • Cameron Paterson says:

        The head of Cafcass did have this to say about parental alienation last year

        • Mr T says:

          Cameron, I’m quite confident when I say most of the people who read this blog and know the current state of the Family courts and institutionalised child abuse are more than aware of Anthony Douglas’ public comments on this, however the situation still remains the same in terms of Family courts, magistrates and the VERY real situation of dads (and mums) being powerless against non-molestation order enforcement vs stopping their child being abused via pathological enmeshment.

          This goes against every parental human emotion – as a famous barrister once said, save for murder it’s the worst thing that could be done to a human being (separating a parent from a child). So why is it still happening??

      • Richard Nixon says:

        Phil. I know you were successful getting a change of residency in the East Anglia family court but would you have got reversal of residency if the case had been heard in Sussex Family Court before judges who hand out Non Molestation Orders to mothers like sweets at a children’s party. Richard

    • M & M says:

      I think what is also being taught to our children is that it is OK to BREAK the LAW, the courts themselves are showing the children that the LAW means nothing and there are no repercussions to breaking it, by not holding the parents breaking the court orders accountable.

      • Mr T says:

        No, what’s being taught is, if you’re a woman you get special treatment and privilege and its okay to say or accuse what you like with little or no evidence and you’ll be not only believed but police will action it regardless of what is really happening.

        Then when a court order is issued it doesn’t really matter what you do you’ll never be punished because of regardless of the empirical facts the “probability” is you’re correct so we’ll reward you with a lives with order regardless and we’ll prosecute the father because they’re usually violent and they need to be taught a lesson and dealt with heaviest of consequences.

        It’s called the illustrated empathy gap and the sentencing gap aka female privilege which is a total factual reality, not some fabricated reverse pop psychology spewed out by disordered angry adult children of generation on generation of broken families.

        All powered by vindictive, sociopathic feminists.

        • M & M says:

          I whole heartedly agree with you Mr T, I am a woman and my other half is going through all this at the moment with his ex. He has had false allegations made against him by the ex wife and now the children, he has not seen his children for near on a year now as they are deemed old enough to make their own decisions.

          I am against feminism as women only use it as a fighting tool, “we want to be equal”, “we want to be able to do what a man does”, “we want to be independent not depend on men” BUT wait I am going through a divorce now, so I have to be the weaker one, the one that has given up everything to look after the children (when in hindsight I actually did naff all) I will lie, because I will be believed without proof, if my ex says I abused him, not to worry he will asked to prove it, unlike me who will be believed straight away because I am a WOMAN.

          If I take the children I will get benefits, maintenance, but I will lie to my children about what really has happened so that they stick by me, and then I will stop the dad seeing them as I don’t really want them to know the truth as that is bound to come out if they speak to him, so I will turn him into the enemy, because you know what it is my RIGHT as a woman and I have all these organisations behind me to back me up, the police will believe me and not my ex as what sort of man is abused by the wife come on get real, we are the weaker!!

          The amount of people that say to my partner, you won the case so why are you not seeing the children, his reply is YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND family law until you are in the thick of it. His ex is saying he lost the case that’s why he isn’t seeing the children, while she keeps them away from him.

          And the solicitors WELL, you see a pattern straight away, with the corrupt ones that know that if they keep this going they are going to earn a good amount of money, whilst destroying an entire family.

          If you look at my comment much further down you will see what I think should have happened to this mother and any other person who does this.

          • Mr T says:

            “they are deemed old enough to make their own decisions” question anyone who states this. This is part of parental alienation – adultification.

            It’s self-evident that children are not old enough to make their own decisions if this is CAFCASS call them out on it (politely) I’d guess they have no idea about PA.

            Using a simple example of you wouldn’t let them choose to eat sweets only, or not go to school because of their “wishes and feelings” so why give an even more important decision they’re not capable of making before say 16-18?

          • M & M says:

            Even at 16 they are not old enough to make that decision as the brain is not fully developed, all to do with the synaptic connections in the brain, I went on training on this years ago when I was teaching disaffected young people, quite interesting to recognise how the manipulation can work more at this age as a vulnerable time in a child’s life.
            I have been surprised with the CAFCASS’s Social workers as I know a few social workers who have done part of their training in CAFCASS and were the ones that identified the Parental Alienation in my partners case and said it came from the Training in CAFCASS, although one trained in Manchester and said their offices had a better understanding. These Social Workers were not listened to or allowed to have a voice by the courts. The social worker said that the magistrates had made their decision before my partner entered the court.
            Its that don’t judge a book by its cover scenario.

            The problem with Lay Magistrates are they generally older people with older views not modern understanding of current situations, and come across as pompous. What is their background with regards to mental health, children, family disputes etc, how can you make a judgement if you don’t recognise manipulation, abuse on men, emotional and psychological abuse. I have always respected my elders and people in authority as I think they have lived longer so know more.. Well not in Family Court, I have even looked into becoming a Lay Magistrate (you have to do 28 days a year in court and training with them over the 2 years, its not paid only expenses and suppose it suits a retired person), but you have to do 2 years criminal cases before you can get into Family court, even with all my qualifications, skills and knowledge, which is ridiculous I think.

          • Mr T says:

            Also, something to note. Sociopaths use any and all excuses to not take responsibility for their choices and actions. Mine is exactly the same. He’s this he’s done that. The police told me to. Cafcass told me to… when in reality there is nothing stopping them making a conscious decision to be reasonable and allow contact.

            It’s all about getting money out of men for both the judiciary and associated professions (who in themselves in my experience so far) utterly useless in these circumstances and giving privilege to women for simply having a child.

            It’s time this nanny state made these women responsible by taking away the lifestyle payments and giving custody to dads who will quite happily pay for and care for their children instead of this institutionalised abuse by proxy.

            We pay for ourselves, we pay all our ex’s who have children, we pay the courts we pay everything it needs to end. Men are more than credit cards.

            Fair play to you though in supporting him. As women sadly your voice will have more of an impact than any man’s voice it might be fruitful if you used it to represent men like us who have been abused then controlled, then marginalised by not only these disordered women but the system.

      • Mr T says:

        Until the judiciary realise that treating women in this way is going to fuel abuse of the system by disordered women it will escalate in all allegations of any offence. Which is exactly what we’re seeing now in high profile rape trials etc. This is mirrored at all levels – the police need to stop blindly believing abusive vindictive sociopathic women who lie to abuse men (or anyone really), plain and simple.

  23. Phil says:

    Unfortunately what Anthony Douglas says and what his staff do and say or have been trained on are wildly different. However, if I was still in court dealing with CAFCASS I may bring this to my CAFCASS officers attention

  24. T says:

    Around 99% of fathers will get contact in domestic abuse cases which make up about 70% of all cases in private law, and Cafcass have an agenda of presumption of contact for fathers. In most cases abuse of mothers and children are not taken seriously by family courts so this report is about a very small minority of possible injustices for fathers. Any others have solid proof of domestic and child abuse/violence. This is how courts work. Its now well known that family court professionals have an institutional belief that most mothers ‘lie about abuse’, so leading to the horrific situation of children being handed over to be alone with dangerous fathers through unsupervised contact or even residence.
    Family court have been using ‘parental alienation syndrome/implacable hostility’ since the 1980s so its nothing new. The same old model of accusing victims of lying and supporting the abuser. Its usually used against mothers but very occasionally fathers. Talking about abuse is a symptom! A cruel and dangerous catch 22.
    The abusive type personality, cluster B, narcissistic, sociopath,.psychopath all find a playground where they can continue their abuse within family courts. In particular they must enjoy the fact that they can so easily fool most professionals into supporting their poor me stories.

    • Stitcheduo says:

      70% of private law cases involve domestic abuse!!!!????? There you have it!!! Clearly the card that trumps all others!!

      • Phil says:

        Here’s a scenario, Mother is unhappy that relationship has broken down, decides to punish father by stopping him see his children. Father decides to apply to court for access. Mother – oh – I better defend my selfish actions – he abused me !! Could that be why 70% of cases have some form of abuse.
        And if in 99% of those cases, the man gets contact then that must suggest that either the abuse has stopped or there was none in the first place.

    • Mr T says:

      I challenge you to show some statistics for those assertions.

      99% will get contact? Direct? Indirect? (i.e. no contact)

      I doubt you’ll ever present any solid reliable statistics. How about some statistics on enforcement orders vs non-molestation order breaches?

      Now there are some statistics I’d love to see.

    • Stitchedup says:

      “Any others have solid proof of domestic and child abuse/violence” …. I doubt that… all that’s required to secure a non-mol is an allegation, no proof is needed. Many women that make allegations have cluster B personality disorders…. cluster B traits…. “Cluster B personality disorders are characterized by dramatic, overly emotional or unpredictable thinking or behavior and manipulative, exploitative interactions with others”… (Wikipedia)

  25. Phil says:

    Me thinks the “Judges”, the lawyers and the rest of the “family violence industry” will continue laughing all the way to the Bank….. There is much evil afoot in the politics of family violence. They mean to destroy forever the traditional family unit – of mother / father / child. We have a choice – we either fight for our children’s futures, or we let the radical socialist-feminist ideology destroy our children.

  26. M & M says:

    It is disgusting, if a court order was breached in any other case what would happen?? Bail, they would be arrested and in court within 24 hours and refused bail again. Would a breached court order in any other circumstances be left without consequences??

    The judge says what more could we have done? What should have been done was “Ma’am, you have breached the court order, for this you will spend X amount of time in prison, there are no excuses for not adhering to a court order. While you are in prison for breaking this order, the the child will live with the father, and when you come out we will look at the order again, if you breach it again you will return!”
    People will say but the mother needs to be there for the child you can’t put her in prison, WHY? If it was benefit fraud she would have been in prison, where do the children go then?

    A few strong decisions like that and both mothers and fathers will co-operate, but all the time the courts are wishy washy,too PC and not want to offend or be criticised for being harsh on this, we will continue to have this issue.

  27. S says:

    Can anyone in this field, preferably a judge if they are reading these posts, explain why they do not take a breach of a court order seriously? I’ve had experience where I have blatantly seen a mother breach an order and not once was she even reprimanded. The judge didn’t want to know, why is that?

  28. Andrew says:

    Every order for contact should be endorsed with a penal notice unless the PWC makes out a thundering good reason why it should not be: the fact that she, usually she, intends to obey it not being such a reason. And as i said upthread the first disobedience should lead to a suspended sentence which should be activated next time. It’s not really that complicated.

Leave a Reply

Close

Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.

Privacy Policy