Comments on: When being too motherly can land you in jail

By: john

john — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 16:40:40 +0000

Having been through the experience of repeated attempted alienation by a vindictive woman I totally agree with the court’s ruling. Why should the father be deprived of his having a good relationship with his children by the spiteful actions of a woman? Your comments that she was a good mother up til the break-up seem unfounded, maybe her attitude towards mothering and apparently owning her children were what caused the problems in the relationship. I’ve been through the court and CAFCASS system and believe me it is VERY female orientated, if they recommend that the woman has parenting problems then she must be bad. Overindulgent for example could mean she never encourages the children to go to school if they don’t feel like it, she never makes the children go to bed on time if they’re not in the mood and numerous other potentially harmful things, I really don’t think that this judgement was made on the grounds that for example she gives them too many sweets..
Apparent high conflict people like this I am convinced cause the vast majority of problems in the family court system.
Also I think that a number of people will presume she is bitter because the husband left her. This is not necessarily the case. My ex decided she no longer wanted to be with me for her own reasons. There was no abuse, no drink, no drugs, no affair she simply decided after our children were born that she did not want me around, she then made it clear that she wanted me to disappear from my children’s lives in a similar fashion.

By: lady regina

lady regina — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:32:16 +0000

When something as appalling as this verdict where a mother is banned from seeing her children for no good cause , you know that society is becoming more and more inhuman with each passing day. When being and acting as a mother is treated as a crime , then you cannot deny that something is so warped within that it has reached a point of no return. Did the punishment fit the ‘apparent crime? No amount of court orders can ever render a mother’s instinct void.Was justice done or an injustice born ? The court utterly failed to recognise the mothers vulnerable state and the fathers demand for punitive action. Family law courts have always upheld the adversarial system because that is how they rake in the money.
The question is why do we subscribe to a legal system in which whatever a judge decides is absolute? Does a judge , a single person, no different from the rest of us somehow have extraordinary powers of insight and enlightenment? Are they born with or have special powers invested in them ?
Why do we accept that they should be able to exercise incredible powers and influence over people’s lives , when they are no more human, infalliable and flawed like anyone else? Why does the public give them this right? It is our very justice system that needs to be challenged,smashed overhauled and redesigned so that Justice is served and not authoritarian rulings that only serve to maintain an secret society of appointed, not elected individuals.

By: Portia

Portia — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:33:18 +0000

Many clients who go through the family court process and end up with unjust rulings suffer Legal Abuse Syndrome- PTSD with the added ingredient that the trauma is from the legal system.

Mothers are expected to suffer- good for their souls- remember us being taught that even in the 1970,s. Women are here to save their husband’s souls, so should not leave them. It is all in our DNA from one generation to another.

Now it is our chance to rectify this imbalance.

Law is Male.

Justice is Female.

The scales of Lady justice must balance.

By: STACEY

STACEY — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:12:10 +0000

Just an update from above. After a lenghthy fact finding hearing, 15 serious allegations found against the dad- still contact may be awarded? Alienation is something that occurs if not enough love is given to a child, not through lack of a parent, especially if that child is loved and cared for enough by the one remaining parent.

I do believe that our system in respect to child welfare is a disgrace. How do these professionals think the whole Baby P came about?

God Forbid….

By: Stacey

Stacey — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:25:56 +0000

I believe that a mothers love and genuine concern within the English court of law is dismissed. I am currently going through a court battle myself, where my baby’s dad was not only VERY violent he is also certified insane and been in mental hospitals for over 10 years! He has been informed that his illness is affected by alcohol, so during a break at the last hearing he went into the pub to have 4 beers! Following this he shouted abuse at me, calling me and my family variuos offensive names.

Regardless that my barrister and his see this, im still being told that he will more than likely have some contact orederd. The fact that my daughter has come to much harm (Never mind what he did to me- im a woman, she is just a baby) is ignored.

Our legal system is disgusting and disgraceful. Would anyone tell me that they would leave their child/ren under the supervision of a certified schizophrenic?

He always swore to me that when he gets access i will never see either of them again, then i’ll know what pain feels like. (Knowing this man as i do, regrettably he doesn’t mean abduction)

Oh, but wait a minute its still MUST be in the best interest of my daughter to see her dad…..

By: Liz

Liz — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:16:21 +0000

Marilyn,

Bloody well written!

By: Salli Ward

Salli Ward — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:45:25 +0000

We certainly see sad cases where there is no direct contact at the end. What we have learnt is that indirect contact – properly set up, managed and, if necessary, monitored, can provide the best hope for direct contact in the future and protect the child from some of the effects of alienation. We also know that this scenario (indirect contact only) is most likely if a child has reached the age of seven without having had professional intervention. Children, of course, vary massively and for some only a slight look of fear or disapproval in a parent’s eye can deter them from contact; for others the parent can be actively hostile but the child will still tolerate the uncomfortable experience of moving between parents. We always say Pro-Contact can’t work miracles but we are proud that in some cases those involved are convinced we have done. So yes, the methods work well, within limits. A little girl having fun with a ‘daddy’ she didn’t even know existed a year ago (‘I haven’t got a daddy’); a teenager saying ‘OK, I’ll see him’ when we were expecting him just to agree to contact with his half-siblings – we see some tearjerkers! Sadly, our relationship with the family courts is profoundedly affected by the change to the LSC guidance on payment under disbursement. Work with these complex, needly families is labour intensive and we lost 80% of our budget for assessment. Working with parents who attend only because they are ordered to do so is obviously not the best scenario – but people can and do change and children can still benefit from our interventions even when their parents remain hostile or unco-operative. Of course many parents simply want the best for their children – and some time to recover from their own trauma. We try to work with them, not against them. Of course it is our priority to keep children safe but we do believe that contact is usually the best outcome even where contact parents are a long way off perfect. We don’t ask parents to be perfect (after all, we’re not) – just good enough.

By: Margo

Margo — Tue, 19 May 2009 12:56:12 +0000

Thanks for the responses – Salli, yours was partucularly interesting (I wasn’t previously familir with your organisation) I would be interested to know how succssful you fell t he types of wotk you have set out are, particulalry in the context of a parent who starts from the perspective that *they* ‘don’t need any help’ or ‘aren’t doing anything wrong’?

Irecently dealt with a very sad case which ended with a order for no direct contact with the (in this case) father – (the child concerned having made it clear that contact was not wanted) he having rejected all suggestions and proposals made from a variety of csources including Cafcass and the independent child pychologist who became involved, about how he could improve the experience of contact for the child.

By: When only the High Court will do | Marilyn Stowe Family Law and Divorce Blog

Thu, 14 May 2009 14:31:01 +0000

[...] me When being too motherly can land you in jail May [...]

By: Marilyn Stowe

Marilyn Stowe — Thu, 14 May 2009 07:00:50 +0000

Thanks Nick. We represented a father pro bono who had been permanently banned from seeing his child because he too (in my opinion) had been badly affected by post separation trauma. The child concerned had originally expressed a wish to keep seeing him. We had the ban removed but by the time we came into the case, the child concerned had almost grown up. The father now has the long term problem of parental alienation to deal with.
.As you and your colleagues know, I feel very strongly about these types of cases, whether mother or father, which I believe within the court process should belong in the High Court, and requires the most expert of management in a number of different fields.