Press Releases | Press Release Distribution | Submit Press Release - Is it possible that Family Courts along with the Government are complicit in acts of child abuse ask

You are

Is it possible that Family Courts along with the Government are complicit in acts of child abuse ask

Quiz

Free Press Releases

Is it possible that Family Courts along with the Government are complicit in acts of child abuse ask

Written by Mike Ellis
Thursday, 03 May 2007
Child abuse is defined as the physical or psychological mistreatment of a child by his or her parents (including adoptive parents), guardians, or “other adults”. In our view to deny a child contact with a parent under circumstances where there is no substantiation for a claim of a risk to a child is, in effect an abuse of the child and of a child's right to benefit from meaningful and ongoing relationships with both natural parents. Under the Children Act the guiding principle is the “welfare of the child”. Unfortunately what constitutes the “welfare of the child” can be interpreted in numerous different ways. We believe that the Family Courts have got it wrong and we refer to the state of our society and the statistics relating to single parent families by way of demonstration in support of our argument this to include the ever increasing rise in dysfunctional and ant-social behaviour among our youth. Reference to further statistics will demonstrate that the Family Courts are gender biased with custody awarded to a party other than the mother being very rare and even exceptional. This of course is denied by Government and the Courts who will claim that the law is gender neutral despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Following promotions by Harriet Harman and others who have apparently been influenced by the feminist movement, current Family Court forms require a tick in the box where domestic violence is alleged. There need not be any supporting evidence with regard to the allegation. Further, a person can lie with impunity in any Family Court without fear of being charged with perjury. It may be claimed that a person can be charged with perjury resulting from statements made in a Family Court. However, evidence presented in a Family Court is not given under oath and there are no known cases of a charge, let alone a conviction for perjury resulting from anything said in a Family Court by a parent. The allegation of domestic violence is dealt with by the Family Court Judge as a 'finding of fact'. Basically what the Judge chooses to believe. There may be no evidence to support the allegation. CAFCASS might be invited to investigate and report to the Court but even in the unlikely event that CAFCASS advise that the accusation was a blatant lie it is still unlikely that a Family Court will take any serious or effective action to prevent or discourage such behaviour, as for the police they have limited and ineffective powers according the Metropolitan Police. Hence the most likely scenario based on precedent is that CAFCASS and the Family Court will, without proper or effective investigation, err on the basis of safety and pass judgements or orders based upon an “assumption” that there might be a risk to the child. Unfortunately our Family Courts are secret courts on the pretext of providing protection for the child. This and the 'malicious neighbour' argument as put to us by Tim Loughton MP Shadow Minister for Children is used to justify the continued secrecy. Why do we continue with this failed system? If the Family Courts were, as all courts in England and Wales should be; “open courts”, then the “malicious neighbour” risk might reasonably be anticipated by warring parties and this in itself might be a persuasive factor in encouraging amicable settlements without recourse to the courts this in the interest of all of the parties concerned. Blair Mk.2 has made the '”family” a central item of Tory policy but it is currently unclear how they intend to support the family or indeed what they mean by “family”. He has mentioned the “errant feckless father” and “responsibility” but the concentration seems to be on financial responsibility as apposed to parent child relationship. In fact there are many fathers who would dearly love to bear the duties, benefits and privileges of fatherhood but are denied these opportunities as a consequence of decisions of the so called “Family Courts” who, it seems are as anti family as the current Government. In simple terms, our position is that the “welfare of the traditional family” should be paramount. If that was the case then the welfare of children would be likely to follow as a natural consequence. Marriage/parenting should be encouraged and supported in every possible way by the State according to article 18 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). There could perhaps even be a 'deemed to be married' status affecting co-habiting couples who have children. I.e. they become legally married (which is a contract) by way of conduct. Parents should be equally and severally responsible for the carrying out of the duties resulting from parenthood. Those duties apply to the children of their relationship and to society as a whole. If the child is not legally responsible then who is? We suggest that the parents should be responsible. Consequently, if a parent is denied the duties, benefits and privileges of parenthood by a Family Court then, by way of equity or natural justice, that parent could then be absolved of the responsibilities that are then taken on by the state as a consequence of an order of the court. However, if a parent chooses not to carry out the duties or enjoy the benefits and privileges of parenthood then this would have to be possible but the financial responsibility would still remain. To make family law work there has to be a presumption in law that a child will benefit from the 50/50 contact and influence of both parent in the event of separation or divorce. There could be a range of predetermined “templates” to suit what might be a wide range of circumstances but the 50/50 'rule' must apply in all cases that are brought to a court. However, provision can be made for the parents to make their own alternative arrangements that may be submitted to a court for approval. To deny in any way the meaningful contact between a child and a parent either directly or by the promotion of ill feeling between the child and a parent should be considered as an abuse of the child and as such dealt with firmly by competent Judges. False allegations intended to interfere with the relationship between a child and a parent is also an abuse of a child and should be dealt with severely and as a serious criminal offence. This is a must if Family Courts are to be seen as anything other than being complicit in the act of child abuse, bearing in mind the emotional and psychological damage inflicted on the child concerned once in the hands of family law and CAFCASS Officers to whom the judge relies on 99.9% of the time as if an expert, this in itself is a travesty of justice and should be redressed accordingly for in no way should a Non Expert be given such power to influence the separating of child and parent this in itself is tantamount to abuse and as such against the UN Convention of the Rights the Child again, bearing in mind that invariably what is recommended by these non experts is, in the hearts and minds of one so young a lifetime of separation from a loved one and all the emotional and psychological suffering that this entails. All allegations relating to the risk to a child resulting from further contact between a child and a parent should be properly investigated “by an Expert”. It is possible that a lower level of proof than “beyond reasonable doubt” may be required. Depending upon the allegation it might be possible to form a view on the basis of probability. The powers that be would need to look further into this to get the balance right. The first question that might be asked is: Would we be concerned about the child if the parents were still living together under the relationship that existed before the separation or divorce? The basic thrust should be to support the traditional family and pass more, not less responsibilities on to families. This must be associated with a firm policy to ensure that both natural parents maintain the duties, benefits and privileges of parenthood even following separation or divorce and the sure knowledge that this is the position that will be taken by the courts, “in an open court”, if the parties are unable or unwilling to reach amicable agreements without the intervention of the courts. Suffice to say children have rights too yet it would appear in family law mother comes first irrespective of the emotional and psychological damage imposed on an innocent child in its formative years the like of which will have serious and long-lasting effects and comes in many different forms as is already apparent in society. I can do no better than quote the wise words of Mr Justice Munby, a leading and outspoken family court judge who not so long ago referred to the removal of children “as surely the most terrible power the state may wield over a citizen once capital punishment was abolished”. I can add only this that unfortunately he forgot to mention the effect is the same upon parents invariably fathers in ordinary family court disputes who’s access to children is suddenly prevented or severely restricted, and this is without question or doubt happening daily throughout the land. Suffice to say when this power is wielded in almost complete secrecy, then there has to be a fundamental flaw in the functioning of democracy and about this all victims be they fathers, mothers, grandparents or extended family members should and must speak out in their broken heartedness, anguish and despair only then can we have any chance to bring about change in family law. I say this not out of ignorance but as a father who’s son has not seen me or the paternal side of his family for some eight years now, do not put your trust in the platitudes of politicians for there is an organization out there who has been fighting the fine fight on behalf of both children and parents for over three decades yet still they have not managed to bring about change in family law and nor can we at the NSCFC no matter how hard we might try. That there are well in excess of a million innocent children out there all victims of what we call State sponsored abuse is but one thing but add to this the over one million of you grandparents no longer able to embrace your beloved grandchildren add again all the others on your side of the family and yes it runs into the millions. Unity in number is the only answer all other options have been exhausted. We therefore urge the next prime minister to commit to making a real difference to the lives of these abused children by becoming a good ambassador to the country’s most valuable treasures, for indeed “today’s child is tomorrow’s parent” and as such the reason for our very being. It is evident however from current circumstances that politicians of all our leading parties are unlikely to progress any significant movement in connection with these matters unless it can be clearly demonstrated that this is the will of the people and that there are votes to be gained as a consequence of significant and meaningful changes in family law as is currently practiced in the United Kingdom. Your views can be made known by contacting the NSCFC who would be more than willing to represent views and support any lawful actions with this objective in mind. If you have or are suffering as a consequence of the manner in which family law is applied in this country we would be please to hear about your case to assist us to build up a record of injustices related to this subject, (note) given the nature of this issue we would not publish names and always treat your information in the strictest of confidence in accordance with the Data Protection Act. Needless to say it really is down to you, me indeed all of us to speak out stand up and be counted, we owe it not just to ourselves but more importantly to those we hold most dearest namely the children who long for and need our love and support in their formative years. Hence with this very emotive issue in mind please don’t hesitate to use the NSCFC as a platform for you to be seen and heard depending on your desire to protect the Right of the Child. National Society for Children and Family Contact (NSCFC) is a registered charity which believes that continuing contact with a child’s parents or extended family after separation or divorce is vital for the child’s balanced development and it works tirelessly to foster those all-important family contacts. As such we offer free support and advice to all those in need. Helpline at National rate also available 24/7 this to include support and domestic violence helpline for men on 0870 794 0075 or www.nscfc.com Bookmark with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon What are these?

< Prev		Next >

Contact Us | Press Releases | Site Map | Life Jackets