IKNOWNOW , you are so right about this difficult problem . The Rights of a Child discussed in 2001 with Cherie Booth and Sloss in a Conference raising questions of the rights to contact to children violent parents most of which were fathers was discussed goggle this or I will send you a link.
We actually met Dr Clarie Sturge for repots to be done.She simply had a day off when we arrived to discuss problems with the NRP father. The report was turned around with me being accused of PAS , he got custody I got 1 hour in a contact centre not allowed to hand over a present to a very poorly child with leukaemia.
This is just barbaric.On the other hand I know women have been done for failing to protect their children, when police logged fone calls for help are then used for court against the mother turned around.
This is simply not on a CRB can not be changed it was put before the court and the psycho got custody and the mother was marginalised talk about .............
you are right say nothing is the advice given on M4J we went and warned them what happened to us can happen to you too.
No one listens to the advice of solicitor sad but true.I know done MAc Friend .Hardest job in the world.
Amanda , thefamilies are blowing the lid of the corruption in Liverpool the cases there are so corrupt not for discussion on these boards. The judges are writing orders long after children have gone missing, shame is the section 54 grabbed and cases lodged in European Courts will hang the lot of the legals now.
I managed to successfully challenge the section 91(14)order the local authority took out as a further deceptive manoeuvre, The judge refused the section 91 14 stating there hasn’t been loads of applications, however as I pointed out as a parent the mother is entitled under section 10(4) Children Act 1989 to apply for any Section 8 order.
Julie, well done You see clear evidence of what I was saying earlier this section 91/14 is used a lot ,not as solicitors and courts would have you believe it is rarely used.
Julie I had major surgery and 6 weeks after this was given section 91/14 as far as I am concerned I will let this stand and show my son in the future how badly the courts treated his mother,also disregarded his wishes.
The message is this expect this section 91/14 when you are fighting for decent contact .
Arnie , I have responded to Amanda IKNOWNOW and I agree with her and her advice to members.
I will tell you OUT right I have no objection to F4J sitting on Harriet HArman's roof there you have IT. I have a letter from HH it is posted up on multiply, she says I have raised important issues about expert witness's in closed court.
I ask the question has she forgot us now ? has she been gagged also since she became deputy leader for the Labour Party?
I say well done to the F4J going round her house or any other MP who thinks they can pay lip service for a short while , until they get to were they want to be in a comfortable seat in the House of Commons and keep shut.
To name Margret Donnely running for office and SHREDDEDSOCIETY on You tube the mother ahead in the opinion poll in the US she is a fine example of what we have to do to WIN VOTES and take away the votes of future political leaders.
It is in the BAG . F4J are not the only ones doing stunts do the research .
This restriction (Section 91 14) is meant to be reserved for the most extreme cases, but is often applied to those who are seeking a reasonable level of contact with their own children. Once made, the order can be difficult to overturn.