Thanks to Robert Whiston for drawing attention to this article which, amongst other things, bolsters our argument that CAFCASS officers are not sufficiently qualified.
“A study by senior barrister Penny Cooper of City University in London, has shown that the majority of lawyers and judges do not bother to check the qualifications of experts they approach to bolster an aspect of their case.
She also found a substantial number of the expert witnesses had undergone no training to understand their legal duty.”
- “The expert as judge and jury”, By Lois Rogers, The Sunday Times (Britain), 18 Nover 2007
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2889323.ece
Monday 19 November 2007
Tuesday 23 October 2007
False Accusations can lead to PAS
False Domestic Violence Accusations Can Lead To Parental Alienation Syndrome, says David Heleniak
David Heleniak is a civil litigation attorney in New Jersey and Senior Legal Analyst for the True Equality Network.
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=40678
False domestic violence (DV) restraining orders can lead to Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS), a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent.
Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a pattern of thoughts and behavior that can develop in a child of separated parents where the custodial parent causes the child, through manipulation and access blocking, to unjustifiably fear and/or hate the other parent. PAS is more than brainwashing, in that the child comes to actively participate in the degradation of the target parent, coming up with original (often ludicrous) reasons to fear/hate him or her.
Domestic violence (DV) restraining orders are a perfect weapon for an alienating parent. Typically, in addition to removing an accused abuser from the marital home, a DV restraining order also "temporarily" bars the accused abuser from seeing his or her children, and "temporarily" gives the accusing parent exclusive physical custody. And temporary, in the Family Court, has a funny way of becoming permanent.
Obtaining a restraining order based on a false allegation of domestic violence gets the target parent out of the house and out of the picture. A father who can't see his kids, for example, is unable to rebut the lie "Daddy doesn't love you anymore. That's why he left you." Nor can he rebut the alternate lie, "Daddy is dangerous. The wise judge said so. That's why he can't see you."
Often, if an accused abuser is allowed to see his or her children, it is in a supervised visitation center. As Stan Rains observed in "Supervised Visitation Center Dracula," "The demeaning of the 'visiting' parent is readily visible from the minute that a person enters the 'secured facility' with armed guards, officious case workers with their clipboards and arrogant, domineering managers.... The child's impression is that all of these authority figures see Daddy as a serious and dangerous threat. The only time a child sees this type of security is on TV showing prisons filled with bad people." Not only does visitation in a visitation center send the clear message to the child that the "visiting" parent is a bad person, if children decline to see their parents under such a setting, they are generally not forced to do so. More perversely, if a child is encouraged by the custodial parent to refuse to see the target parent, there will be no significant repercussion to the targeting parent, and, generally, the child will not be forced to see the target parent.
The more time a child spends away from the alienated parent, the worse the alienation will become.
As psychologist Glenn F. Cartwright remarked in his article "Expanding the Parameters of Parental Alienation Syndrome," "the old adage that time heals all wounds, such is not the case with PAS, where the passage of time worsens rather than heals the affliction.
This is not to say that time is unimportant: on the contrary, time remains a vital variable for all the players. To heal the relationship, the child requires quality time with the lost parent to continue and repair the meaningful association that may have existed since birth. This continued communication also serves as a reality check for the child to counter the effects of ongoing alienation at home.
Likewise, the lost parent needs time with the child to ensure that contact is not completely lost and to prevent the alienation from completely destroying what may be left of a normal, loving relationship.... The alienating parent, on the other hand, requires time to complete the brainwashing of the child without interference.
The manipulation of time becomes the prime weapon in the hands of the alienator who uses it to structure, occupy, and usurp the child's time to prevent 'contaminating' contact with the lost parent, depriving both of their right to spend time together and furthering the goal of total alienation.
Unlike cases of child abuse where time away from the abuser sometimes helps in repairing a damaged relationship, in PAS time away from the lost parent furthers the goal of alienation. The usual healing properties of time are lost when it is used as the primary weapon to inflict injury on the lost parent by alienating the child."
Along these lines, Dr. Richard A. Gardner, who coined the term "Parental Alienation Syndrome" in 1985, maintained: "If there is to be any hope of their reestablishing a relationship with the targeted parent, PAS children must spend significant time with him (her). They must have living experiences that will demonstrate that the PAS parent is not noxious and/or dangerous."
A parent willing to falsely accuse the other parent of domestic violence would probably be willing to poison a child against him or her. Add to this the problem that a judge willing to "err on the side of caution" by entering a DV restraining order based on a dubious false allegation would probably not be willing to do what was necessary to prevent the development of PAS.
PAS is heart-wrenching and, tragically, common. If the DV restraining order system could be reformed so that only real victims obtained restraining orders and only real abusers were thrown out their houses, I predict that the number of PAS cases would be greatly reduced. Let's try to get there.
Thanks to Lisa Cohen of JUMP for drawing EPC's attention to the above article
Saturday 15 September 2007
Geldof on our appalling Family Justice System
This video is a few years old, but a must see!
The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name!
When Bob Geldof went to the Royal Courts of so-called Justice he was advised by a well-meaning court clerk not to mention to the judge that he loved his children!
The clerk explained that courts regarded such fathers as extreme!
Click here to watch the video.
The Real Love that Dare Not Speak its Name!
When Bob Geldof went to the Royal Courts of so-called Justice he was advised by a well-meaning court clerk not to mention to the judge that he loved his children!
The clerk explained that courts regarded such fathers as extreme!
Click here to watch the video.
Monday 27 August 2007
Why target Judges?
From: Robert Whiston
Sent: 26 August 2007 01:49
To: c.foster@bathchron.co.uk
Subject: Why are JUDGES TARGETED BY ANGRY DADS ?
Dear Mr. Foster,
RE: "JUDGES TARGETED BY ANGRY DADS" (Bath Chronicle)
An interesting article.
It is time the Press stood up on it hind legs and made an issue out of the
benign censorship and manipulation it has had to endure for decades by the
authorities, AKA the institutions.
It is curious how the authorities have no compunction in 'naming and
shamming' those they deem to have sinned or fallen short in the eyes of
society yet a double standard exists when those very same paid servants of
society themselves sin or fall short in the expectation of the public.
If you could but for a moment imagine that it is not judges being "targeted
by angry dads" but aggrieved parents which have not been well served by the
justice system then all would fall into place for you.
If you have any doubts about the failure of the courts system simply follow
what is happening with adoption cases this very week. Contact John Hemmings
MP for what he sees as their shortcomings.
When you are convinced then project that onto divorce cases where custody
hearings are also made in secret courts.
Yours truly,
Robert Whiston FRSA
COMMENT:
There’s a natural tendency amongst the public to believe that judges are always right. Had I not had direct experience to the contrary in the family courts – and extensive experience at that – I would probably share that propensity.
The most effective campaigning I think we ever did was when we protested outside judges houses. It’s a pity that those demonstrations died out.
Since they stopped, the judges have lapsed back to simply sidelining nonresident parents and they have relaxed their judicial pressure on the government for the systemic reforms which are badly needed to ensure children get to keep both parents in their lives.
Tony Coe, President, EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL
Sent: 26 August 2007 01:49
To: c.foster@bathchron.co.uk
Subject: Why are JUDGES TARGETED BY ANGRY DADS ?
Dear Mr. Foster,
RE: "JUDGES TARGETED BY ANGRY DADS" (Bath Chronicle)
An interesting article.
It is time the Press stood up on it hind legs and made an issue out of the
benign censorship and manipulation it has had to endure for decades by the
authorities, AKA the institutions.
It is curious how the authorities have no compunction in 'naming and
shamming' those they deem to have sinned or fallen short in the eyes of
society yet a double standard exists when those very same paid servants of
society themselves sin or fall short in the expectation of the public.
If you could but for a moment imagine that it is not judges being "targeted
by angry dads" but aggrieved parents which have not been well served by the
justice system then all would fall into place for you.
If you have any doubts about the failure of the courts system simply follow
what is happening with adoption cases this very week. Contact John Hemmings
MP for what he sees as their shortcomings.
When you are convinced then project that onto divorce cases where custody
hearings are also made in secret courts.
Yours truly,
Robert Whiston FRSA
COMMENT:
There’s a natural tendency amongst the public to believe that judges are always right. Had I not had direct experience to the contrary in the family courts – and extensive experience at that – I would probably share that propensity.
The most effective campaigning I think we ever did was when we protested outside judges houses. It’s a pity that those demonstrations died out.
Since they stopped, the judges have lapsed back to simply sidelining nonresident parents and they have relaxed their judicial pressure on the government for the systemic reforms which are badly needed to ensure children get to keep both parents in their lives.
Tony Coe, President, EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL
Friday 10 August 2007
Judge Made Laws are Flawed
This successful appeal by the husband (see press report below) follows an absolutely crazy, incompetent and palpably biased decision by a family court judge.
Even so, the appeal court judges still find it necessary to make "a modest award" even though there were not the slightest legal grounds for ANY award.
It will be interesting to read their judgment. No doubt, as usual, they'll make up the law as they go along. Why even bother with a Parliament really!?
Man wins 30-year-old divorce payout appeal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/25/ndivorce125.xml
A wealthy retired builder has won his appeal over a court ruling that he must pay more money to the woman he divorced nearly 30 years ago.
Dennis North, 70, was ordered last year to pay his first wife, Jean £202,000 by a family judge who heard she had "fallen on hard times" after embarking on a lifestyle she could not afford.
Lord Justice Thorpe, giving his ruling in the Court of Appeal today, said: "The prodigal former wife cannot hope to turn to a former husband in pursuit of a legal remedy, whatever may be her hope that he might, out of charity, come to her rescue."
But he, together with Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, agreed that Mrs North, 62, may have entitlement to a "modest award" which they will assess by the end of next week.
The couple, who married in 1964, divorced in 1978 - a year after he found out she was having an affair with the man she later went to live with.
In 1981 he made a financial settlement with Mrs North buying her a house and investments.
Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life.
But in 1999, she sold up and moved to Australia where she saw her capital dwindle because of bad investments and what the court was told was a lifestyle beyond her means.
A district judge awarded her a lump sum of £202,000 in April last year after agreeing that Mrs North's money troubles had nothing to do with her former husband and he had no further responsibility towards her.
Since his divorce from his first wife, Mr North has prospered and his wealth is now estimated at between £5 million and £11 million, the court was told.
Mr North, who still lives in the former matrimonial home outside Sheffield, was left to bring up the three children of the marriage and has two children by his second wife.
He asked the Court of Appeal to quash the award.
Lord Justice Thorpe said today that that approach was "fundamentally flawed" and the appeal should be allowed.
He said any settlement must be fair to both parties and it did not follow that Mr North was responsible financially for any of Mrs North's needs.
Even so, the appeal court judges still find it necessary to make "a modest award" even though there were not the slightest legal grounds for ANY award.
It will be interesting to read their judgment. No doubt, as usual, they'll make up the law as they go along. Why even bother with a Parliament really!?
Man wins 30-year-old divorce payout appeal
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/25/ndivorce125.xml
A wealthy retired builder has won his appeal over a court ruling that he must pay more money to the woman he divorced nearly 30 years ago.
Dennis North, 70, was ordered last year to pay his first wife, Jean £202,000 by a family judge who heard she had "fallen on hard times" after embarking on a lifestyle she could not afford.
Lord Justice Thorpe, giving his ruling in the Court of Appeal today, said: "The prodigal former wife cannot hope to turn to a former husband in pursuit of a legal remedy, whatever may be her hope that he might, out of charity, come to her rescue."
But he, together with Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, agreed that Mrs North, 62, may have entitlement to a "modest award" which they will assess by the end of next week.
The couple, who married in 1964, divorced in 1978 - a year after he found out she was having an affair with the man she later went to live with.
In 1981 he made a financial settlement with Mrs North buying her a house and investments.
Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life.
But in 1999, she sold up and moved to Australia where she saw her capital dwindle because of bad investments and what the court was told was a lifestyle beyond her means.
A district judge awarded her a lump sum of £202,000 in April last year after agreeing that Mrs North's money troubles had nothing to do with her former husband and he had no further responsibility towards her.
Since his divorce from his first wife, Mr North has prospered and his wealth is now estimated at between £5 million and £11 million, the court was told.
Mr North, who still lives in the former matrimonial home outside Sheffield, was left to bring up the three children of the marriage and has two children by his second wife.
He asked the Court of Appeal to quash the award.
Lord Justice Thorpe said today that that approach was "fundamentally flawed" and the appeal should be allowed.
He said any settlement must be fair to both parties and it did not follow that Mr North was responsible financially for any of Mrs North's needs.
Thursday 9 August 2007
Fathers to get more child access under Tory reforms
CSA accused of rewarding mums who deny chld access to fathers
Fathers are to get more child access under Tory reforms
The Child Support Agency was last night accused of rewarding mothers who deny former partners access to their children.
Tory family welfare spokesman Andrew Selous is planning reforms to give fathers fairer settlements.
Mr Selous wants to end a rule that cuts mothers' maintenance if they let children stay with their fathers for more than a set number of nights.
It is cut by a seventh for between 52 and 103 nights a year, two sevenths for between 104 and 155 nights, three sevenths for 156 nights and by half for anything over that.
Around 40,000 estranged fathers care for their children at least 104 nights a year.
Mr Selous warned: "When a mother sees it's getting to 90 nights, she might say, 'Sorry, the children can't stay'."
He said the decision to replace the CSA with the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission was ' rebranding and a massive missed opportunity'.
Mr Selous wants the commission to have a duty to help parents find a civilised arrangement over access.
The Work and Pensions Department said: "Access is a matter for the courts. Parents have the first responsibility to provide for children."
Info source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474125&in_page_id=1770#AddComment
Fathers are to get more child access under Tory reforms
The Child Support Agency was last night accused of rewarding mothers who deny former partners access to their children.
Tory family welfare spokesman Andrew Selous is planning reforms to give fathers fairer settlements.
Mr Selous wants to end a rule that cuts mothers' maintenance if they let children stay with their fathers for more than a set number of nights.
It is cut by a seventh for between 52 and 103 nights a year, two sevenths for between 104 and 155 nights, three sevenths for 156 nights and by half for anything over that.
Around 40,000 estranged fathers care for their children at least 104 nights a year.
Mr Selous warned: "When a mother sees it's getting to 90 nights, she might say, 'Sorry, the children can't stay'."
He said the decision to replace the CSA with the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission was ' rebranding and a massive missed opportunity'.
Mr Selous wants the commission to have a duty to help parents find a civilised arrangement over access.
The Work and Pensions Department said: "Access is a matter for the courts. Parents have the first responsibility to provide for children."
Info source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=474125&in_page_id=1770#AddComment
Wednesday 7 February 2007
Cyriax warns about TV programme maker
Oliver Cyriax writes on the subject of Karen Hamilton Productions:
If this is the programme which recently contacted me (where the contact was also Karen - the mobile is 07980 863 769) it is best avoided.
The lead researcher for this documentary ('Karen') was at pains to inform me:
(i) that she already knew everything
(ii) that, in consequence, there was nothing more she needed to find out
Basic conversation confirmed that she was unaware of :
- the basic intellectual principles in this sector
- the common components of contact cases
- the law as it actually is
- the law as it is believed to be
- the difference between the two
- why this might matter
- recent developments in thought
- the role of Government and Whitehall
- the significance (or otherwise) of the Contact and Adoption Act
- the history of the various institutions
- the deficit of these various institutions
- the way this affects contact applications
- recent endeavours at reform
Karen did not know either what was wrong; or how it could be put right.
She made it plain that she was not interested in finding out. I have not had such a dispiriting conversation since dealing with the Home Office in the mid-1990s. I imagine that anyone who does, approaches the programme at their peril.
Please feel free to copy this out.
Regards
Oliver
From: "Lara" <lara@khpl.co.uk>> >>
Dear George,>>>> Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I have been out of the >> office>> for a few days and only now got the chance to catch up with all my emails.>> I am sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences in the past and hope>> that the following goes some way to reassuring you about the aims of our>> project.>>>>
Karen Hamilton Productions has won awards and helped to shape government>> policy with past programmes and this series, about the family justice system, will hopefully go some way to making things better for parents and>> children.
These programmes are serious docs and we have no interest in>> making one party look bad as this would be counterproductive to looking at>> where the problems in the system lie.
I have been working on this for over >> 2>> years and my huge concern is that these disagreements about children are>> linked to the hurt that both parents are feeling. It is these grey areas>> that we hope to elucidate as children need both parents- how can the >> family>> courts best serve families in the long term. As the child of separating>> parents I know myself how important this is.>>>> We also have a number of safeguards built in for the families that>> participate of the programmes, including that parents and children can >> drop>> out at any time up to transmission and we cannot broadcast their footage.>> The families will also get to see the programmes before they go out and >> are>> still able to drop out at this point.>>>>
I hope this answers your questions George and that you will be able to put>> something up on your website about us. It is only through talking to >> parents>> about their experiences that we are able to make well rounded and>> informative programmes and your help is much appreciated,>>>> Feel free to give me a call if you would like to chat further,>> Best wishes>>>>>>>> Lara Leslie>>>> Karen Hamilton Productions>>>> Tel: 020 7503 1640
If this is the programme which recently contacted me (where the contact was also Karen - the mobile is 07980 863 769) it is best avoided.
The lead researcher for this documentary ('Karen') was at pains to inform me:
(i) that she already knew everything
(ii) that, in consequence, there was nothing more she needed to find out
Basic conversation confirmed that she was unaware of :
- the basic intellectual principles in this sector
- the common components of contact cases
- the law as it actually is
- the law as it is believed to be
- the difference between the two
- why this might matter
- recent developments in thought
- the role of Government and Whitehall
- the significance (or otherwise) of the Contact and Adoption Act
- the history of the various institutions
- the deficit of these various institutions
- the way this affects contact applications
- recent endeavours at reform
Karen did not know either what was wrong; or how it could be put right.
She made it plain that she was not interested in finding out. I have not had such a dispiriting conversation since dealing with the Home Office in the mid-1990s. I imagine that anyone who does, approaches the programme at their peril.
Please feel free to copy this out.
Regards
Oliver
From: "Lara" <lara@khpl.co.uk>> >>
Dear George,>>>> Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I have been out of the >> office>> for a few days and only now got the chance to catch up with all my emails.>> I am sorry to hear that you have had bad experiences in the past and hope>> that the following goes some way to reassuring you about the aims of our>> project.>>>>
Karen Hamilton Productions has won awards and helped to shape government>> policy with past programmes and this series, about the family justice system, will hopefully go some way to making things better for parents and>> children.
These programmes are serious docs and we have no interest in>> making one party look bad as this would be counterproductive to looking at>> where the problems in the system lie.
I have been working on this for over >> 2>> years and my huge concern is that these disagreements about children are>> linked to the hurt that both parents are feeling. It is these grey areas>> that we hope to elucidate as children need both parents- how can the >> family>> courts best serve families in the long term. As the child of separating>> parents I know myself how important this is.>>>> We also have a number of safeguards built in for the families that>> participate of the programmes, including that parents and children can >> drop>> out at any time up to transmission and we cannot broadcast their footage.>> The families will also get to see the programmes before they go out and >> are>> still able to drop out at this point.>>>>
I hope this answers your questions George and that you will be able to put>> something up on your website about us. It is only through talking to >> parents>> about their experiences that we are able to make well rounded and>> informative programmes and your help is much appreciated,>>>> Feel free to give me a call if you would like to chat further,>> Best wishes>>>>>>>> Lara Leslie>>>> Karen Hamilton Productions>>>> Tel: 020 7503 1640
Monday 8 January 2007
More discrimination against nonresident parents
Times Online January 05, 2007
Court order effect on child support
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,30589-2533023,00.html
Court of Appeal
Published January 5, 2007
In re B (a Child) (Child support: Reduction of contact)
The court was not obliged to have regard to the amount of child support one parent would have to pay the other when changing any access arrangements.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Wilson) so held in a reserved judgment on November 23, 2006, dismissing the father's appeal against the decision of Mr Recorder Maxwell, QC, in Chesterfield County Court on March 17, 2006, varying the court order relating to the father's contact with his daughter, by reducing the number of nights she was to stay with him from 105 a year to 93. That meant his liability to pay child support to the mother, previously assessed at £53.85 a week, was now assessed at £97.26 a week by the Child Support Agency.
LORD JUSTICE WILSON said that the father's liability to pay was assessed under the Child Support Act 1991 prior to amendments in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. It was unclear whether he would be subject to the new statutory regime.
It would be impracticable for a court, hearing an issue as to contact or shared residence, to discern the beneficial or detrimental effect on the child of the consequences under the 1991 Act of alternative possible orders, demanding a complex inquiry into the likely differences under one or other of the regimes in the sums payable and also into the effect of the differences in those sums on the two households and on the child within each household.
Court order effect on child support
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,30589-2533023,00.html
Court of Appeal
Published January 5, 2007
In re B (a Child) (Child support: Reduction of contact)
The court was not obliged to have regard to the amount of child support one parent would have to pay the other when changing any access arrangements.
The Court of Appeal (Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Wilson) so held in a reserved judgment on November 23, 2006, dismissing the father's appeal against the decision of Mr Recorder Maxwell, QC, in Chesterfield County Court on March 17, 2006, varying the court order relating to the father's contact with his daughter, by reducing the number of nights she was to stay with him from 105 a year to 93. That meant his liability to pay child support to the mother, previously assessed at £53.85 a week, was now assessed at £97.26 a week by the Child Support Agency.
LORD JUSTICE WILSON said that the father's liability to pay was assessed under the Child Support Act 1991 prior to amendments in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000. It was unclear whether he would be subject to the new statutory regime.
It would be impracticable for a court, hearing an issue as to contact or shared residence, to discern the beneficial or detrimental effect on the child of the consequences under the 1991 Act of alternative possible orders, demanding a complex inquiry into the likely differences under one or other of the regimes in the sums payable and also into the effect of the differences in those sums on the two households and on the child within each household.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)