A well respected, award winning social enterprise
Volunteer run - Government and charity funded
We help 50,000 people a year through divorce

01202 805020

Lines open: Monday to Friday 9am-5pm
Call for FREE expert advice & service info

Do you need help sorting out a fair financial settlement?

Our consultant service offers expert advice and support to help you reach agreement on a fair financial settlement quickly, and for less than a quarter of the cost of using a traditional high street solicitor.


Fathers for justice

  • lyndamac
  • lyndamac's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
29 Jun 08 #29590 by lyndamac
Reply from lyndamac
Hey Wikivorce ,

How is it going ? I am all for a naked protest outside Browns Door . On my first demo a married man asked me to lay down with him on the pavement outside no 10 Downing Street!!!! .I just bet you on mass we all go back united in protest and do a John Lennon Peace naked sprint up Whitehall.

These closed courts have literally gone to far now.
This isnt the place for details but I am divorced.With custody of my eldest son , the other child was diagnosed with ALL T cell leukaemia in 2004 I was never married to his father . The Father was the NRP he got custody I got 1 hour a month in a contact centre. I have section 91/14 until 2010 regarding contact issues I can not return to court on contact issues whatsoever without giving the courts a good enough reason why I want to return. There were no prior concerns about my care of my child prior to this case.

I am new here but look forward to debating and bringing personal experience to that debate.


I am part of MFJ and we dont climb on things, Look forward to meeting you all





.
Attachments:

  • lyndamac
  • lyndamac's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
29 Jun 08 #29611 by lyndamac
Reply from lyndamac
downbutnotout , what about the way section 91/14 is used to stop good parents going back to court to fight their cases. This is supposed to be rarely used these days.We have found a lot of families have this barring order which is draconian law by all account it is disgraceful ; there is nothing wrong with the law it is HOW IT IS USED !

  • downbutnotout
  • downbutnotout's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
29 Jun 08 #29615 by downbutnotout
Reply from downbutnotout
Hi lynda,

In my divorce the big issue was finances. So from personal experience I have a lot of views on the flaws in the Ancillary Relief process.

I have no experience whatsoever of the child contact and residency related law / isssues etc.

So not sure that I can make any real contribution to that side of things - other than the fairly generic statement that I think contact with both parents should be the norm.

And erm....I've never actually heard of a section 91/14 so can't really comment.

Cheers
DBNO

  • D L
  • D L's Avatar
  • User is blocked
  • User is blocked
More
29 Jun 08 #29618 by D L
Reply from D L
Hi there

I disagree re your comment as to the way the law is used.

If a judge misapplies the law the aggrieved party has an automatic right of appeal, so there is recourse. Sadly it appears to me that it is the case that the aggrieved party perceives the result as unfair, when in actual fact the outcome was a reasonable one in all the circumstances of the case.

And as for s91.14 orders, I have certainly only known them used in cases where there was no other way to gain peace for the carer of the child and for the child itself. In fact, my major frustration with these orders is that we are sometimes far to hesitant to use them

Amanda

  • lyndamac
  • lyndamac's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
29 Jun 08 #29624 by lyndamac
Reply from lyndamac
downbutout if you pm I will tell you more this is not the appropriate place ,however it is now best to take advice before you get legal advice if you know what I mean . It costs nothing to be educated from those who have been down the road ahead of you.

  • lyndamac
  • lyndamac's Avatar
  • Visitor
  • Visitor
29 Jun 08 #29626 by lyndamac
Reply from lyndamac
Amanda ,thank you for your comment in all fairness I have not discussed the details of the case ,so your comment is ok I suppose for the facts presented.
I m sure our son is destroyed by the courts decision there are no winners in this case. I am sure you would agree a sick child needs his mother . A no contact order at all was originally sort by the LA ,however this is according to the Human Rights Charter to stop contact with members of your immediate family ...........

This just was the start of the case set out in 2004 section 91/14 was mandatory for a loving mother reluctant to hand over to a violent thug NRP father.

The case is now going to be a bench mark case concerning other issues far more serious for discussion on here.

  • Arnie Saccnuson
  • Arnie Saccnuson's Avatar Posted by
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
29 Jun 08 #29629 by Arnie Saccnuson
Reply from Arnie Saccnuson

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11