“Mum is implacably hostile” By guest blogger DT.
How often have you heard this phrase?
If you’re a lawyer or some other professional involved in intractable contact matters, probably quite a lot. If you’re a parent (probably a dad) you may have first hand experience of the phenomena.
Although either parent, or indeed both parents can be implacably hostile, the term is usually levied at mothers by fathers. This, in the main, is my own experience. Whether this is because the mother tends to be the one with whom the children live after the split or there is some other reason altogether, I’m not sure.
Even if a break-up has been particularly difficult and protracted, many parents manage to make amicable arrangements for the children to have contact with the non-resident parent and judicial intervention is not required. However if parents cannot agree on suitable contact arrangements, then the courts will often be required to intervene and make a contact order.
What is “implacable hostility”?
The phrase “implacable hostility” made its judicial debut almost 30 years ago and has been in use ever since (see Re B (A Minor) (Access) [1984] FLR 648). It isn’t suitable to describe a tricky mum or awkward dad. Instead, it is a specific term reserved for the most obdurate of parents. These are the parents who will go to any lengths to prevent or sabotage their children from having a meaningful relationship – or any relationship at all – with the non-resident parent. If I could use only two words to describe implacable hostility, I would say that it’s insidious and sustained.
Implacable hostility is likely to generate conditions that prohibit a relationship from prospering. The desire of the hostile parent to sabotage the relationship outweighs any acceptance that what they are doing is not in the best interests of the child, and they may genuinely believe this to be the case. It is especially difficult if the resident parent is certain that their appraisal of what is in the child’s best interests is more accurate than that of the courts.
It is necessary to differentiate between opposing contact with and without a valid reason. If a parent objects to contact because of genuine fears of violence or there has been a history of domestic violence, then this is not implacable hostility (see RE: H (Contact: Domestic Violence) [1998] 2 FLR 42).
Why does it happen?
There can be any number of reasons. From control to revenge, to a genuine belief that it is in the best interests of the child. Every case is different. Sometimes it becomes more about one parent wanting to have the other parent’s bad behaviour exposed in court so they can have their own feelings or beliefs verified by a judge.
How does implacable hostility manifest itself?
There are many different examples of this conduct. Here are just a few:
- Refusing communication between themselves and the non-resident parent, creating either a very difficult environment for contact or preventing any contact at all;
- Making patronising or unpleasant remarks about the non-resident parent to the child which can undermine their relationship;
- Deploying whatever means necessary so as to ensure that contact is made very difficult or frustrated altogether;
- Gifts fail to arrive, telephone messages are not passed on;
- If children are very young, a parent can fail to facilitate telephone conversations, read letters, pass on school reports, news or photographs;
- Moving to a different part of the country;
- Encouraging a child to make a decision in direct conflict with an order of the court;
- Suggesting an attractive alternative to seeing the other parent;
- At the last minute “something happens”, which means that contact cannot take place; and
- False allegations of violence, neglect or even sexual abuse of the child (see the leading case of V v V [2004] EWHC 1215).
What is important to the courts?
As Marilyn and her colleagues have frequently stated, the courts will seek to do what is in the best interest of the children. For this reason, there is a presumption in favour of contact as it is considered a child’s right, unless of course contact would be contrary to the child’s welfare. Indeed, over the last 20 years judges have been quite determined that objections to contact will fail when the child’s welfare requires that contact.
When considering making an order, and deciding what will be in the best interests of a child, courts undertake a balancing exercise based upon the Welfare Checklist contained in Section 1 of the Children’s Act 1989.
Dealing with breached orders
Making an order is one thing, but making it stick can be quite another if one parent is determined for the children not to be part of the other parent’s life. Sometimes an order is complied with to begin with and then contact starts to deteriorate. Other times it never gets off the ground.
Managing intractable disputes and “policing” those who refuse to comply with contact orders is an exceptionally difficult undertaking for the courts and as yet, nobody has come up with a magic solution to the problem.
But the courts do have powers to transfer residence from the resident parent to the non-resident parent. In the case of V v V [2004] EWHC 1215 the residence of two children was transferred from mother to father due to the judge, the late Mrs Justice Bracewell, finding that the mother had made false allegations of sexual, physical and emotional abuse by the father and his family. She believed that such allegations and the parental alienation caused to the children would continue if they remained with the mother. In contrast, the judge found the father to be very reasonable, loving, capable and financially able to have residence of the children.
However, the courts will also sometimes impose a custodial sentence on a parent defying a contact order (see Re W (a child) [2010] EWCA Cov 1280). But a judge will always have to consider the impact of such an action on a child. Imagine the further resentment which could be built between the child and applicant parent if the child perceives they have sent their other parent to prison.
You may think that imprisonment is the ultimate sanction that a court can impose. It ought to be, but in cases like Re W the courts have attempted a custodial sentence before transferring residence to someone else. In this case it was transferred from the mother to the paternal grandmother in the interim, until a review could take place.
And in V v V the judge stated that the last resort would be to “give up”. This is where no contact is ordered due to the fact that the children are so damaged by what the offending parent has told them. They have come to believe it themselves and think that they do not want contact with the other parent. In these circumstances ordering contact or even a change of residence would cause further significant harm. This is the hardest decision to make for a judge or a parent who decides that pursuing their case any further would upset the child. And the case of Re S (A child – Transfer of residence) makes sobering reading in this respect.
In the case of Re L (Contact: Domestic Violence) [2000] 2 FLR 334, the Court of Appeal heard four cases where they were tasked with dealing with proven violence or threats of violence, where fears of the resident parent were indeed reasonable and where significant issues relating to harm to the children arose. The Court decided that there should be no presumption either way in favour of contact, but that there should be a balancing exercise based upon the welfare checklist as well as previous contact between the parties (Section 1.3, Children’s Act 1989). Where violence is proven, the court will look at the willingness and ability of an individual to address their behaviour. The welfare of the child is of course paramount. The Court of Appeal dismissed all four appeals. It was held that the family courts need to possess a greater appreciation as to the impact of domestic violence on children.
In my opinion, if a court considers that a child is at risk of suffering significant harm, it is more likely that it will ask the local authority to intervene and make an order under Section 37 of the Children Act 1989. The Local Authority can then be asked to investigate so as to ascertain the child’s welfare.
No happy ending
The consequences can be tragic and some parents give up altogether. It is incredibly frustrating because non-resident parents can feel so powerless.
While the court can grant an order, the reality is that they can be very difficult to enforce.
It’s hard to know the real impact on children as some are too young to communicate clearly. Those who are of an age to “know what’s going on” can be reluctant to speak candidly about their wishes and feelings because they don’t want to be disloyal or take sides.
The more orders are flouted, the more frustration builds with what seems to be an unjust and increasingly hopeless situation. Sometimes the process generates more questions than answers. Why isn’t the court doing anything? Why is this person allowed to ignore what a judge says he or she has to do?
While judges have options to impose sanctions, including imprisonment and transferring residence, the latter is a controversial and unusual tactic, which would undoubtedly have a significant impact upon a child. This can, in-turn, lead to a perception of a “toothless” system. Judges have been accused of being “pro-mum” or “anti-dad”, and the sentiments are further compounded by the so-called secrecy of the family courts.
Final thoughts
To an outsider it’s all too easy to think, why can’t two grown-ups sit themselves down and sort something out? But the travesty is, for one reason or another, they just can’t. The outcome is months or even years of legal wrangling, leading to a decision handed down by a judge that, in many cases, a sensible pair could have arrived at themselves, without the large invoice. And above all, the children’s welfare is often sadly overlooked at a time when they most need a positive environment and robust infrastructure around them.
In some less extreme cases a Shared Residence Order is often considered. As Lord Justice Wall states in Re P (Children Shared Residence Order) [2006] 1 FLR 3009:
“Such an order emphasises the fact that both parents are equal in the eyes of the law and that they have equal duties and responsibilities as parents. The order can have the additional advantage of conveying the Courts message that neither parent is in control and that the Court expects parents to cooperate with each other for the benefit of their children.”
So on paper, it would seem that the court has numerous options within its arsenal to deal with implacable hostility and its ramifications. The reality, in my opinion, is quite the reverse. Orders can be made, but there is a gamut of means some people can and will utilise to circumnavigate them.
What does the future hold in store for families stuck in this situation? The Family Justice Review recently concluded that additional enforcement measures in cases where there is a breach of an order is not the answer. In its response the government decided that it did not agree:
“Whilst the courts already have a number of enforcement powers (a fine or imprisonment for contempt of court; the imposition of unpaid work; and the award of compensation for financial loss suffered by the other parent) there are practical and evidential hurdles which in practice mean that these sanctions are little used. The Government therefore intends to explore the feasibility of providing the courts with wider enforcement powers so that in appropriate cases these can be used to address wilful disobedience in respect the court’s order. Parents should also be made aware at the outset of proceedings about the potential consequences of disobeying any order made by the court and the government believes that this could help prevent enforcement from becoming the central issue.”
Qualified solicitor DT is a regular reader and commenter on the Marilyn Stowe Blog.
The post features additional content from Stowe Family Law solicitor Jennifer Hollyer.
Image credit: Red Dragon by rumpleteaser
|
Share this post
|
Get free family law updates
|
Marilyn Stowe’s new book: expert advice on all aspects of divorce, for just 99p!
Divorce & Splitting Up by Marilyn Stowe is the essential how-to book for anyone who is getting divorced or splitting up from a partner. Read more >>
"A must buy that really opens your eyes to what is involved if you are considering or going through a divorce." - Amanda Brown
"This will answer your questions in a way that non-lawyers can understand." - Miss P.
"This really has helped me to see that there is light at the end of the tunnel and I will come out of it a stronger person." - J
Awards
IAML
34 Comments
Observer on July 17, 2012 at 5:43 pm
It is good to see this important topic being addressed here. I just offer two corrections.
1. DT writes that parents either go to court, or they split amicably. Let’s not forget all those dads who just give up because they don’t have the emotional strength or time or money to put up with years of litigation and abuse. Chances are they have seen a friend put through this hell, and they get it into their head that it is just not worth it. Later, when they realize how wrong they were, they are accused of abandoning their families, of inconsistency, thereby doubling the crime that has been done to them.
2. DT implies that implacable hostility is something that comes from within a parent. This is not the case. Implacable hostility is engineered into the system, by which I mean that one parent is implacably hostile because they know they can behave like that and get away with it, and get funded by taxpayers (via legal aid) to boot. Implacably hostility in other words is a role that one takes on, not an innate propensity.
3. DT suggests that enforcement does not work. This is true. The only thing that will work is a complete demolition of the power imbalance in family law by putting into place a 50/50 presumption of shared care, merely as a starting point, so that both parents know where they stand or could stand when the marriage falls apart. So long as one party perceives that they hold all the cards, implacable hostility will continue to plague the courts, and more importantly, the lives of children.
x on July 18, 2012 at 8:50 am
Just as well it can be the non-resident parent that has hostile attitude: call in with last minute changes, delay returning the kids home after visitation, makes false accusations, makes untrue and unpleasant comments on the other parent to the children, promises the kids a puppy dog and endless trips to Disneyland if they pressure the parent for more visitation or ask the social worker to move to the other parent’s home, refuse to return the children’s clothing or personal items after visitation, will not assist the children to do homework during visitation so that the other parent needs to make up for it…
Not to even mention the financial pressure that so many non-resident parents cause by withholding maintenance payments. Hostile attitude of the non-resident parent may be a form of revenge, a way to try to force change on the custody arrangements for example.
The 50/50 system suggested by Observer will be no solution if the other parent really fails to be responsible. Also that would tie both parents up to continue to live at the same school area, while in real life there are also other considerations, such as work requirements, changes brought on by new relationship etc. Children need a home-base, and 50/50 system does not suit all. Also that would require more cooperation between the parents than arrangements for weekend visitation, which just will not work if the relationship has turned hostile or if either parent is not responsible to follow the agreed arrangements. Cooperation and good attitude cannot be forced on the parents.
JamesB on July 18, 2012 at 11:59 am
Father’s can also get involved and over-protective of their daughters, financial litigation and slandering and undermining their ex’s and mothers of their sons and ex daughter in laws, and the adversarial system doesn’t help. Can become a bit like Jerry Springer and Jeremy Kyle and it smells because of it. Would be better if the courts sent antagonistic parents to parenting classes.
Yvie on July 18, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Observer – your post could have been written by me. I am so much in agreement with what you say, particuclarly points 2 and 3. Malicious applications do not always achieve the desired effect, but these applicants do seem to get away with it scott free. Aggressive solicitors who encourage parents to engage in these dubious tactics certainly are not acting in the best interests of the children.
It seems that it is difficult for some people to understand 50/50 shared care as the default. Parents don’t have to arrange 50/50 if they are unable to do so. The welfare of the child is paramount and if 50/50 wont work, then some other arrangement has to be agreed by the parents. It isn’t rocket science.
One party does not have to perceive that they hold all the cards. There is no perception about it – they do hold all the cards. Unless the balance is redressed the Courts will continue to thrive on misery.
In many cases, problems regarding shared care are purely down to protecting income from child benefits and child maintenance. False allegations against the non-resident parent are made because of it.
JamesB on July 18, 2012 at 12:42 pm
If judges don’t order parents to these classes because of money, I think that could be overcome as I for one would give my time to these for free, as I suspect would many others.
Observer on July 18, 2012 at 3:29 pm
The problem James is that if your heart is not in the classes but rather in hurting your ex, then classes will have no beneficial effect (like medical treatment).
Yvie, I agree with you, people for some reason still have a very hard time understanding the difference between a forced 50/50 scenario and a mere presumption of 50/50 which helps parents understand they are both valued, or conversely that neither will get away with cutting the other out. When you have this latter presumption, dads will not simply give up, but finally recognize that they have a chance to be the parents they want to be.
X, let’s stop throwing up smokescreens around the subject, and recognize that the abuse of power only comes to an end when you’ve got the deterrence program that a 50/50 presumption puts in place. If parents really love their child, they will recognize this is right; if they don’t, then they have no business being parents, and belong in a mental institution.
Yvie on July 18, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Observer – my son and his ex have not communicated for nearly two years. There has been a bitter court case for 50/50 shared residency which my son did not manage to achieve. However, he did attend a parenting class run by CAFCASS. He was impressed with it and at the end of the final hearing he approached his ex. and suggested for the sake of the children they should start communicating with each other in a pleasant manner. It has got off to a good start and hopefully it will continue. I have some reservations that it may not last. I hope I am wrong.
DT on July 18, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Many thanks Observer, James B, X and Yvie for taking the time to submit comments; they’re much appreciated.
Each of your comments has made me think again about this emotive and totally frustrating issue and I’d like to take them one by one.
Observer:
I did mention ‘giving up’ under the section titled, “No happy ending” because you’re absolutely right! Some parents (often fathers) do just ‘give up’ and it’s tragic. They must feel totally helpless and hopeless and that everything they do is futile. What’s more, it’s not just horrendous at the time because the ramifications of this ’practice’ are infinite.
I disagree with your second point, but only in part. I think that implacable hostility is about one’s own set of ‘values’ and therefore, yes, I do think that it comes from within, I think that one chooses to take this approach – it’s not ‘thrust’ upon anybody. However, I take your point that legal aid has been misused over the years where this behaviour hasn’t been identified and therefore certificates have not been challenged.
I think 50/50 shared care is restrictive. This may not be in a child’s best interests; it could be disruptive, because after all, this is about what is in the best interests of children and not what is best for parents. However, I do not have a problem with shared parenting which may be a more cohesive tact.
X:
I think you’re spot-on with your comments about 50/50; I totally agree with you.
Yvie:
As I have often said, there’s good and bad in every profession, however for the most part, I do not accept that solicitors encourage parents to engage in dubious tactics. I have to say, I do struggle with the idea of 50/50 (see above), and if there’s implacable hostility, there’s unlikely to be any kind of compromise at all.
I wish your son well – he’s obviously doing all he can to make things work in a difficult environment and that has to be admired.
James:
If people aren’t prepared to be reasonable and, in some instances are even prepared to go to prison, then they won’t attend classes. Furthermore, if they do attend classes, like Observer says, what’s the point if their heart is not in it?
Best wishes
DT
JamesB on July 18, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Shock tactics, for example you could have videos of children crying and as adults saying what they need from parents.
DT on July 18, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Hi James
I’m not sure that particular approach would work although I do think that if parents knew the true impact of their behaviour, they just might think again. But therein lies the problem – they can’t see the wood for the trees; they’re so engrossed in their own plight, they often forget what it’s all about.
DT
Yvie on July 19, 2012 at 11:15 am
The sad fact is that some parents will not co-operate with each other for the sake of the children. It is the child’s right to have meaningful contact with both parents. So what is to be done? Legislation has to be put in place to prevent one parent deliberating denying children their right to see the other parent. If that leislation is contravened, action must be taken by the Courts to discourage such behaviour.
It shouldn’t be about opinions that this wont work or that wont work. In the majority of cases children want meaningful contact with both parents. They are owed a duty of care by law to ensure that this happens.
DT on July 19, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Good evening Yvie
What more can the courts do?
If a judge makes an order and it is ignored, reaching for the statute book and passing more legislation isn’t going to make somebody steadfastly determined suddenly listen where they wouldn’t before.
Perhaps more custodial sentences are the answer?!
Yvie on July 19, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Hi DT – I feel custodial sentences would be harsh and would not help the children. Perhaps the prospect of transfer of residence to the other parent might be some sort of deterent to a parent who constantly thwarts contact.
What I think is wrong is that the balance of ‘power’ seems to be claimed by the parent with care. I have read, and I stand corrected if I have misunderstood, that neither parent has the right in law for contact with their children and from that perspective they are both equal. Yet it does seem that it is mostly fathers who resort to Court proceedings in an attempt to gain contact with their children.
That judges can’t or won’t do anything to discourage a parent who prevents contact is just not good enough. Taking the line of least resisistence might seem the best solution at the time but long term, I don’t think the best interests of the child are being served.
However, on a positive personal note, my son has his two children with him tonight for a twelve day stay. They are excited that they will be staying for nearly two weeks.
DT on July 19, 2012 at 8:21 pm
Hi Yvie
Obviously, each case turns on it’s on facts, however, I think transferring residence, (assuming that the non-resident parent is up to it), it a good option. What’s more, I think it’s quite possibly more likely to achieve the best outcome long-term.
What do you think judges should do differently that they currently aren’t doing to bring about a change in behaviours?
I wish your son well and I hope that he enjoys time with his children.
DT
Observer on July 20, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Yvie, I agree with you that custodial sentences are not the answer at the start of proceedings, but where one parent continues to hurt the other and cause pain to everyone around them, then I think they are in order. I think the problem is that judges do not see parental alienation as a form of child abuse, albeit child abuse in slow motion, as it were. It surely is child abuse, and if that cannot be deterred by any means, then a custodial sentence will be better for the children in the long-term, even though it may cause pain in the present.
Transferring residence, I am told, only happens in very extreme cases where there is undisputed evidence that the Resident Parent is completely unfit, violent, and so on. It needs to happen a lot more and a lot sooner, so that parents know that there is a point at which to stop abusing the system and its leniency, to say nothing of the public purse.
DT on July 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm
‘Evening Observer
I wouldn’t advocate a custodial sentence at the beginning of proceedings either, however, I certainly think that there’s a place for such further down the line in some cases.
I’ve read quite a lot about ‘Parent Alienation’ and Richard Gardner’s ‘Parent Alienation Syndrome’, however, I’m certainly no expert on the matter. There appears to be a lot of conflicting opinions on the concepts, and I have more reading to do before I can make my mind up about the whole idea.
While I fully accept that the behaviours we are discussing cause damage and are detrimental, I have a problem with the term ‘child abuse’; but maybe that’s just me. I need to think about it more.
DT
Yvie on July 20, 2012 at 6:31 pm
I think the new Government proposals will go a long way in ensuring that fathers are not cut out of the lives of their children without good reason. In addition, breaches of Court orders are to be toughened up which if applied, should act as a deterrant.
Whilst this is good news, I feel that these proposals do not go far enough. The problem is that unless the shared parenting element is clearly defined, in reality the proposed new laws may make very little difference to a Judge when he is reviewing a case.
This brings me back to the 50/50 shared parenting by law as the default. The decision on how best to parent their children, would once more in the hands of the parents where it belongs and not the judiciary.
DT on July 21, 2012 at 8:12 am
Morning Observer
I have given your comment about implacable hostility leading to parental alienation being a form of ‘child-abuse’ more thought.
Do you think that Local Authorities should become involved in more cases because the Threshold is being increasingly crossed?
“the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm”
s31 Children Act 1989
DT
Observer on July 21, 2012 at 9:51 am
I think that implacable hostility is a very dangerous development, and is indeed a matter of child protection; but that courts for too long have just shrugged it off as all part of the emotional process.
Implacable hostility raises alarm bells that one parent values the welfare and safety of the child less than s/he does the need to hurt the other parent and his/her family. Implacable hostility is a kind of sickness and blindness that is epidemic in a family justice system that could pretty much be said to encourage and condone it.
If there were no gender discrimination informing the way that Local Authorities operate, then yes, I would like to see more Local Authorities involved. The problem is that Social Services (like all Health authorities and GPs) routinely side with moms, and this just perpetuates the problem. I know of cases where the Social Services was aware that the mom’s boyfriend was a risk to the child, but where the father was still sidelined, not taken seriously as a caregiver. I believe that the Baby P case was similar in that mom’s boyfriend was known to Social Services, but because the Social Services could not fathom (in their peabrain imaginations) the thought of the child being placed in the care of their father, residency with dad was not suggested.
If Local Authorities were involved in promoting child welfare and transference of residency to dad, then I’d be more optimistic about their role. But at present most parents distrust the LAs, and rightly so, given their disposition to abduct children from family environments that are not very ideal (or appear to be less than ideal) into care environments that are downright abusive. Leave the kids alone would be my mantra. If the state gets involved in the lives of families, it should not be to break them up but to help them.
DT on July 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm
‘Afternoon Observer
I don’t agree that the family justice system promotes / encourages implacable hostility; I do however think that it’s not always identified or picked up on. I’d also say the same for it’s impact and ramifications.
I think some behaviours are so insidious, they creep under the radar of those who aren’t truly aware if it’s manifestations and impact.
I think that the justice system is getting better at dealing with the problem as awareness grows – but there’s a long way to go and I don’t profess to have all the answers!
Observer on July 21, 2012 at 1:40 pm
The reason I say it promotes implacable hostility is because 9 times out of 10 it rewards this kind of behavior with a Residency order.
Anyone who has been dragged through the system knows that if shared parenting is being opposed (and if allegations are being made) by one parent, then 9 times out of 10 that parent is implacably hostile. I don’t think that “it’s not always identified or picked up on” is a very good excuse. There is a lot more going on here, which has to do with social engineering and the economy, which rests on employers not having to offer paternity leave, and which has to do with keeping women in their place and men in theirs. I believe Karen Woodall has written quite eloquently about this, or at least touched on these themes.
The reason I say implacable hostility is encouraged is because it helps the law reach the decisions it has pretty much already made, which is that dad shall be demoted to a twice-monthly visitor who continues to pay child maintenance for that privilege. Implacable hostility is encouraged because it is a convenient tool in the hands of the courts.
DT on July 21, 2012 at 3:46 pm
‘Afternoon Observer
I’ve listened to what you’ve have to say with interest because other people’s perception of this, (what I consider to be a very ‘intangible’ concept), really interests me.
I wanted to write on this subject because in my opinion, it’s a lot more wide-spread and prevalent, than is known or accepted.
I think it’s been going on for years and it’s not highlighted often enough.
I was also interested to hear your views on this being a wider ‘social’ problem; however, I genuinely do believe that ‘the system’ hasn’t always identified this behaviour and it does need to be better identified and known about.
DT
Observer on July 21, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Thanks DT, but I have real difficulty sympathizing with the view that implacable hostility is not very well known. It’s been written about a lot, though the literature that addresses it is admittedly still quite marginal. But we have known for decades about the controlling behavior and criminal lengths to which some parents will go to cut the other out of the lives of their children. However, it may be the case that awareness of it is increasing in proportion to shifts in social attitudes toward parenting and shifts more specifically in fathers’ sense of duty and responsibility, which extend far beyond being a cash machine to wanting to facilitate the emotional and intellectual growth of their children, and be there for them. What these shifts entail is more litigation. Dads are not taking it lying down any more. This generates a pathological form of anger in moms who expected them to roll over; when they find themselves in court making false allegations in order to maintain control, what you get is entrenchment and the intensification of hostility. This only deepens when moms begin to hate themselves for the criminal depths that they claim their ex-partners have made them sink to.
You cannot stop a tidal wave, and so it only makes sense that government and judiciary alike fall on their swords, swallow their dumb pride, jettison the status quo, and adopt a position of full support for a presumption of 50/50 shared care.
This is not a presumption about the rights of parents, but rather about the duties and responsibilities of parents.
The result will be that both parents know they are valued, decreased litigation, and a more mature approach to raising children in this country.
Implacable hostilities will peter out, because you will no longer have a system that leads moms to believe that children are things/objects/commodities over which they have full ownership and control.
DT on July 21, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Observer
OK, let me put it another way.
I don’t think that implacable hostility is always recognised by professionals. Yes, it’s been around for ever, the phrase was coined some 30 years ago and awareness started to grow, but I think awareness still has some catching up to do.
I do think that Fathers’ groups have raised it’s profile.
DT
Observer on July 22, 2012 at 9:30 am
Yes, but the problem with father’s groups is that they are not taken seriously. They are not taken seriously because they come across as a little angry, which of course they have very good reason to be; but it doesn’t help dialogue and understanding that much.
The more malicious reason for which they are not taken seriously is because there are several interest groups, including the media, which has an interest in presenting them as solely concerned with “rights” and little else besides. This has the effect of dissolving any sympathy that they might otherwise have attained. These interest groups are simply playing language games with the public that has an interest in such things. Behind most fathers’ concerns with what are called “rights” is the desire to simply be a good parent and make sure the “rights” of the child to family life (which I believe are enshrined in the UN Convention re: children) are protected. But the language around “rights” has been so perverted that we have lost sight of what is behind the desire for those rights to be protected.
What concerns me and several others right at the moment, though, is the way that terms like “parental alienation” and “implacable hostility”, which were intended to highlight forms of child and parent abuse, are now just seen by authorities as abstract/meaningless words thrown out there by angry fathers, and pretty much ignored.
So perhaps it is not the ignorance of implacable hostility that is the problem, but rather the manner in which it is routinely ignored. When things like this are ignored, we might as well say that they are encouraged, condoned and even rewarded.
Yvie on July 22, 2012 at 10:37 am
“So perhaps it is not the ignorance of implacable hostility that is the problem, but rather the manner in which it is routinely ignored. When things like this are ignored, we might as well say that they are encouraged, condoned and even rewarded”.
Observer – that comment rather reflects my son’s case. First there was a prohibitive steps order in 2010 followed by an attempted ex. parte application in 2011.
I am sure both judges were aware of the vexacious nature of these applications as the first one resulted in my son obtaining a shared residence order and the second resulted in half school holidays (but not the 50/50 which my son had hoped for).
Neither application appeared to reflect badly on my son, but nor was any action taken against his ex. for submitting them.
However, my son’s barrister made two comments to my son after the Hearing – firstly, that she was aware of judges who would have imposed a prison sentence for two false applications and secondly, that if my son’s ex. were to file any further applications, the judge would think ‘she had issues’.
I have no doubt whatsoever that those involved in the Family Courts are well aware of implacable hosility but how it is dealt with, or if it is dealt with, depends entirely on individual judges.
DT on July 22, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Observer & Yvie
You’ve both made some really good points and they’re giving me food for thought.
DT
Observer on July 22, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Yvie, I have to say that I don’t think the barrister was speaking very truthfully to your son. Over the years, the things that I have seen mothers get away with in court – which are far worse than making false applications – would make your hair stand on end indeed.
Speaking of prison sentences, though, this would be an interesting theme to investigate. My hunch is that they are handed out to dads for the smallest of things, whilst the thought of sending a mom to prison for serious crimes remains unfathomable by the hoary judiciary with their furry eyebrows.
Thankful on August 25, 2012 at 10:13 pm
It’s great to read this advice, and it’s also great to see the contributor keep coming back to answer questions and discuss.
I was glad to find there was a phrase entered into the law which describes the actions of both my soon to be ex wife and her mother. The Mother did all of the nasty stuff listed to my ex’s Dad and now they are both working together to get me out of the picture- only this time the mother knows just what worked and what didn’t work and the Dad is no longer with us to be the moral compass.
The ex didn’t think Social Services getting involved was anything to be concerned about and it was only when they hit her with a no unsupervised contact order that she took note and has spent all the time since then playing catch up and doing her damnedest to “win” and by winning i mean ensuring I have as little contact as she can manufacture and full residency of the children who up until she received the order she didn’t want…
Chances are in this instant she is going to win and all I can hope is that like my ex when my children get to her teens they figures out how evil her mother was to indoctrinate them against their father with unfounded allegations and words of hate. My Ex had to go through Social Services to be removed from her mother and be put into supported lodgings and now she is all ears for the next ploy.
I can’t honestly see “justice being served” on this one, it’s going to be a case of marking one up for the bad guys and I just hope she does them no irreparable damage
Though I am still thankful to read such information and will be looking for more advice like this which might just possibly help to tip the scales…but I am not confident at all. I think some of the things being discussed seems to go above and beyond my perceived capabilities of the solicitor who has been “helping” me try to provide a safe and loving home for my chldren
DT on August 26, 2012 at 9:49 am
Thank you for your comments Thankful.
DT
Name Witheld on November 16, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Hi
I currently have my two boys living with me, one is aged 3 and the other 1, my wife had serious mental health problems and after lots of self harming and suicide attempts she left us all.
She never had a great relationship with her parents, she said her father was abusive when she was younger, punched her and was verbally abusive…..she spoke many times about her previous marrige that she said was abusive….
Social services got involved and told me to apply for a recidence order, she has two girls from her previous marrige who live with their father under residency.
We have been in and out of court, she had supervised contact with the boys, now she has the over night, I am happy for the contact now not to be supervised since a medical report that I requested has said she is doing well, I have never had issues with contact, only that I thought contact should be supervised based on the fact of what she had done.
She wrote many letters whilst in hospital and a couple of short books explaining her difficult past with childhood, marrige ect…. and aslo explained how loving and supportive I have been as a husband and what a rock I have been.
When she left I was simply exhausted with 18 months of my wife self harming, attempting suicide and being verbaly abusive towards me….
She has now made several allegations towards me which I can prove are wrong with her written documents that I retained when she left…
My point is that although I have been very willing for contact to take place, she is being very hostile to the point I feel I cant forgive her for,
She is on legal aid whilst this is costing me a fortune, where is the justice
Observer on November 17, 2012 at 1:36 am
Presumably her legal aid covered the costs of her positive medical report? Money makes this world go round after all.
I don’t think you should look for justice. Nor is it about forgiving (or not) someone who by the sounds of it is clearly beyond the pale.
If she were a man, her litigious accusations would be proof enough that this was just an extension of her violence into the courtroom. She has obviously not improved to the point where she can be trusted with kids, and therein lies your position statement, I would think.
Jimmy on March 19, 2013 at 7:11 pm
I live with my wife. Her ex husband is the birth father of my step children. He is allowed fortnightly contact through a court order. He alleges to family court that my wife was obstructing contact with my step children and he has applied for an enforcement order. He also alleges historic obstruction of contact He provides no dates when any of this is supposed to have occured, and we have documents to show many of his statements are false. In his own statement he even contradicts himself on some events. We have evidence, in the shape of email exchanges with his solicitor from around the time when he initiated the enforcement application that contact was not being obstructed. Surely a judge would dismiss his application?
John on May 21, 2013 at 2:43 am
Your article rings so many bells for me. I find the dynamics utterly heartbreaking. My sons’ mother applies unsuccessfully for a sole residence order every year or two. Each application is preceded by an escalation of HAP. Each time the court rejects the spurous arguments presented by a barrister being themselves hositle and stoking up the atmosphere. The result is a more embittered parent now trying harder to sabotage the boys’ paternal contact and incredulous that the court still insists on a shared residence order. Each further application merely entrenches her sense of injustice and she simply ignores the terms of the order at whim. The lack of insight into her HAP precludes ANY resolution. I witness my sons slowly becoming emotionally damaged and our relationship eroded. I am now being told my eldest no longer wants to stay with me and that being the case neither of the boys are gong to be staying with me. I cannot see how applying for an enforcement order is going to change the overall picture and I am terrified that the gearing up of hostility in the interim would just batter the boys emotionally.