Supervised Contact is a form of domestic abuse.

If someone is on the receiving end of domestic violence, the advice is to get out of the relationship.

If someone is on the receiving end of domestic abuse the advice is to get out.

And yet if someone is on the end of domestic abuse via the family courts the advice is to stick in there and fight.

In doing that you are giving the abuser what they want. The legal systems often empowers the Resident parents to carry out this abuse.

If you walk away and then refuse all contact those abusers are denied the attention and conflict that they so desperately seek.

Just an alternative viewpoint.

Nope its a form of child protection, a way of proving you care enough to stick at it and of keeping warring parents from continuing said war.

Not sure I agree with either of you. I do think that the use of contact centres is often abused by the rp as a means of controlling the nrps relationship with the children, but equally there are times when this is necessary for the safety of the children or the opportunity to build a relationship. So I guess this could be a form of abuse, sometimes.
Disneybunny, I think your comment is very one-sided and ignores the large number of parents who are forced to use the centres simply because the rp has suddenly decided they cannot parent their own children. It also does little to resolve conflict as contact time would not be attended by both parents anyway. Having seen a documentary on this a few months ago, and read many posts on here, the use of these centres is often humiliating for the nrp.
Yes, there are times when they are definitely needed, but many times they are not.

James,
Hang in there. I got supervised initially and had to take it. I got accused of taking cannabis, cocaine, meta amphetamines and amphetamines. So I had to take a hair strand test. Hence the judge was very conservative and I got supervised. Judges cannot normally give supervised unless there is a compelling evidence/argument to do so. Judges are to give supported access rather than supervised. You can argue about the higher cost for supervised also.
Once I got my hair strand result, I got supported contact. The supervisor at the centre told me, "Don''t worry, you won''t be here for long". She was right. Now I have contact away from the centre. Fingers crossed - I hope to have my daughter home early next year. Forget what your ex says and does. Its nothing but a process. Later on, the judge will be over-ruling your ex and expanding your contact. Just leave it for the judge to decide. Think longer term.

Supervised contact is not the preferred option in most cases and is usually only used when their is a perceived risk to the child. Sometimes it is used as a precaution while a perceived allegation of risk is assessed but as in Khan''s case and many others the truth will win in the end.
Supervised contact can and should be the only way some NRPs see their kids as the risks are real. It has its place in the messy picture of divorce as some parents can harm their kids.
The misuse of supervised contact by RPs making unfounded allegations against former spouses is the abuse but the courts frown on that too. If you have done nothing wrong you have little to fear from the system.
The system rightly puts the needs and welfare of children first. If a RP is abusing the system they eventually get their comeuppance.

khan72 wrote:

James,
I got supervised initially and had to take it. I got accused of taking cannabis, cocaine, meta amphetamines and amphetamines. So I had to take a hair strand test.

So what you are advocating is accept the abuse. Learn to normalise it and because it comes with the legal professions backing then it must be okay?

Like telling someone who has been raped or beaten by their ex that they have to go along with it.

You were subjected to an extreme form of abuse. The courts and solicitors were accomplices to this act of abuse.

Hi James,
How do you propose to keep a relationship with the kids then if she never backs down?

HRH