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
Monday 27 August 2007
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)