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

Don't be bullied

  • Alex111
  • Alex111's Avatar
  • User is blocked
  • User is blocked
More
03 Nov 10 #232523 by Alex111
Reply from Alex111
Forseti wrote:

I'll accept that fathers - on the whole - will have more money than mothers to spend in the family courts, though mothers are more likely to get legal aid. I'll also accept there are more groups set up to support fathers and coordinate McKenzie Friends, but that is a consequence of the greater risk to fathers that they will lose their children, and most of these organisations will support mothers equally.
.


Fathers need more money because it is they who are trying to gain something and it is they who have the odds so heavily stacked against them.
When you have a society that barely recognises the role of a father then that means potentially you will spend a fortune in legal fees which many/most fathers do not have.

As for support groups,again fathers need them far more because they are the 'victims'.

For those mothers who out of spite deny the father access to his children,I would truly love it if they could be made to go a month without seeing their kids.When they suffer the pain they put the fathers through then maybe they would think twice about denying access.
Actually probably not.

  • caroljane
  • caroljane's Avatar
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
12 Nov 10 #234373 by caroljane
Reply from caroljane
1. contact in a contact centre is better than no contact at all. 2. if a Scott schedule has been ordered it is because there are allegations which need to be tested in a finding of fact hearing. the court is under a duty to consider allegations particularly of violence before deciding contact. it is not a delaying tactic, it is the law. 3. there is nothing to stop anyone applying for an interim contact order, but turning up on a monday morning expecting the court to deal with it on an exparte basis is a waste of time. the court will expect the other party to be served and will not make an order for interim contact where there are outstanding allegations which have not been dealt with, and if an order was made it would be instantly appealable. 4. apply for a prohibited steps order by all means to stop your children going on holiday. the court is more likely to make a specific issue order allowing them to go on holiday and you will end up looking like the unreasonable parent if you ask the court to stop them without good reason.

a family lawyer who knows whats what

  • Forseti
  • Forseti's Avatar Posted by
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
13 Nov 10 #234438 by Forseti
Reply from Forseti
I didn't suggest that finding of fact hearings wre a delaying tactic, caroljane, but that the making of false allegations was, and that Scott Schedules can be a particular time-waster when very often the allegations contained in them are trivial.

The much more important point I was making was that fathers, especially, often get very poor advice which damages their cases. By the time they seek advice from voluntary sector organisations considerable damage has been done which can be difficult to reverse.

Meekly to accept that "contact in a contact centre is better than no contact at all" merely ensures that fathers and their children continue to receive an appalling service from the family justice system. If a father has done nothing wrong there is no earthly reason why contact should be in a contact centre.

Parents - of either gender - who are wrongly excluded from their children's lives can often get a better result in court by being a little more proactive and a little more assertive and standing up for their children's rights rather than merely accepting what their solicitor tells them to accept.

The advice given by the organisation for which I work might rock the boat and offend solicitors (after all, their first duty is to the court; ours is to the family) but it works, and we have built up a huge body of experience and effective strategies which enable litigants to ditch their solicitors and gets them better results (generally but not always) than they would otherwse get. And it's all free.

  • Forseti
  • Forseti's Avatar Posted by
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
More
13 Nov 10 #234566 by Forseti
Reply from Forseti
Interesting story here on the subject of supervised contact:
www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/hornchurc...r_by_courts_1_718840

  • stepper
  • stepper's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
14 Nov 10 #234603 by stepper
Reply from stepper
The only way to avoid such ludicrous decisions by family courts is to make it law that when married couples divorce, the default arrangement for child care is a 50/50 shared care agreement.

I hope Brian Binley's private members bill on shared parenting manages to get through Parliament.

It is a pity this is not a Government bill as it may stand a better chance of becoming law. It is lamentable that the UK lags behind other countries in ensuring that children have full access to both parents when marriages break down.

  • .Charles
  • .Charles's Avatar
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
14 Nov 10 #234672 by .Charles
Reply from .Charles
This solution has been suggested before but is rarely workable. Believe it or not, some parents don't want 50:50.

How would you enforce such an arrangement on a seaprating couple where one party works night shifts and the other part time? Would you insist upon 50:50?

Care of children has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. By consent if possible as enforcing a regime on people is never going to 'sit right' with one or, more probably, both parents.

Charles

  • Alex111
  • Alex111's Avatar
  • User is blocked
  • User is blocked
More
14 Nov 10 #234689 by Alex111
Reply from Alex111
Charles_prev.fleagal wrote:

This solution has been suggested before but is rarely workable. Believe it or not, some parents don't want 50:50.

How would you enforce such an arrangement on a seaprating couple where one party works night shifts and the other part time? Would you insist upon 50:50?

Care of children has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. By consent if possible as enforcing a regime on people is never going to 'sit right' with one or, more probably, both parents.

Charles


Fantastic.Parents split and automatically each get the kids for 50% of the time.Thats how it should be.
If for whatever reason its unworkable for any couples then they work out a schedule to suit them both.As most single dads would be working full time then they would prob work it down to around 30% of the time and would be happy with that rather than the 5% or nothing some get now.
If agreement cant be reached then it goes to court.
At least from a fathers point of view he starts at 50% rather than starting at % which is the case now.

Moderators: wikivorce teamrubytuesdaydukeyhadenoughnowTetsSheziLinda SheridanForsetiMitchumWhiteRoseLostboy67WYSPECIALBubblegum11