C C Smale Family Lawyer

Since I posted this a few days ago I have seen a commentary here.

Judges, in my experience, have refused to allow mention of the words “Parental Alienation Syndrome” in their courts. I expect this is a thing of the past following this case. They will not be able to deny it any more.

The commentary is worth analysing as it demonstrates what non-custodial parents are up against and the control that custodial parents have.

“As a result of the failure to secure a normal relationship with the father and the high level of parental conflict (the child) had suffered emotional harm.”

The child, now twelve, refused to speak to the father and put his hands over his ears during contact with the father. He says he may consider seeing his father after his GCSEs.

Let’s apportion blame where it is due – seeing as the court found that the father was blameless. Call this child emotionally distressed if you want, which is what he undoubtedly is. More significantly, this is one spoilt child and one mother who has caused serious long term problems yet untold. Credit to the father; I find it extraordinary that he didn’t walk away a long time ago; another “dead beat dad”!

My website is not aimed at legal people but from time to time I put a link to a particular piece of law. Here is the case of Warwickshire County Council v TE and Others.

You do not need to read the case, I will tell you about it. It concerns a boy who is now twelve years old. The mother and father separated before the boy was born and  the father went to court and obtained a contact order. The contact broke down four years ago.

In January 2010 the court made an order that the boy (who is, as I have said, now twelve) should go to live with the father even though he did not want to, because the mother failed to promote any relationship between the boy and his father. Efforts to make the mother comply with the order between January and March 2010 failed and the father gave up on the case.

The main thing that is significant about the case is that it is the first time, as far as I am aware, that “Parental Alienation Syndrome” has been recognised by the English Courts as a reality.

What is not reported about this case is the cost. The court proceedings took place over eleven years.

My own inclination is to suggest that nearly all fathers confronted with such obstacles placed in the way of seeing their child throw in the towel. If my own children, by the age of 12 were so spoilt as this I would have walked away. The fact is that the majority of fathers lose contact with their children upon separation from the child’s mother – it is not to do with being a “dead beat dad”, it is to do with the obstacles placed in the way by mothers.

My personal observation is that many men lose contact with their children when the relationship with the mother breaks down. They consider that it is worthless trying to pursue contact – so much so that it becomes accepted that children grow up without fathers.

I think this kind of thing stores up problems for children’s futures.

As I have indicated time after time, I do not buy into the often-held perception of domestic violence as pictured only by “wife beating”. The view  of men as the sole, or even the main, perpetrators of violence against women and children is questionable.

I can hardly figure out the weirdness of this report. Two people are the victims of a stabbing and are both in critical condition; a 12 year old girl and her mother aged “between 30 and 40″. The Police are “not looking for anyone else in connection with the stabbings”.

I expect a man will be to blame. If so it will be the only way this incident is included in the domestic violence statistics.

I think Celia Walden is mistaken in this article in the Telegraph in thinking that Cristiano Ronaldo commissioning a woman to be a surrogate mother for his baby is an act of vanity.

I know nothing about the law in Portugal, nor in America where apparently the surrogate mother lives. Nor do we appear to be told anything about what Cristiano Ronaldo’s girlfriend, Irina Shayk makes of it all. Ronaldo himself has said little about it.

Women have had the controlling hand in reproduction for forty years or so. For financial reasons planned single motherhood is all too common, while fathers in their naivety disappear from their children’s lives.

I am not particularly a fan of football as such and therefore I don’t care too much one way or the other about these football players, however in this I think Ronaldo has shown quite a lot of wisdom. Congratulations to him.

At the fag end of the previous government the former Department of Children Schools and Families were publishing guidance at a rate of fifty or sixty publications per  month – thousands of pages each month at the cost of millions of pounds.

Separately, the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) was set up. This required over 11 million people to register their fitness to work with children or vulnerable adults.

One justification of the ISA is that if it saved one child from abuse it would be worth it. The “if” is quite a a big “if”. You could provide thousands of mosquito nets at five pounds a time to save many children from death from Malaria. Far less cost than the cost of the ISA which would doubtfully save one child.

We are obsessed in this country by paedophilia and too little concerned with thinking objectively. This is the reason I like Lenore Skenazy’s Free Range Kids website.

There is going to be a massive cut in government spending.

I  think that we have to dismantle the whole idea that normal life is a threat to children’s safety. No! Forcing children away from normal life is the reason they cannot keep themselves safe, they suffer from health problems, emotional problems and failure to cope.

Things will get tougher, not easier – for a while, at least.

Over the years there have been a number of developments in law and in society which have devalued men /  fathers. The 1996 Family Law Act is routinely used to exclude men from the family home. The 2000 Case of Re L V M H is regularly misused, to exclude children from fathers. The Police and Social Services and maybe your “friends” will take the woman’s side.

As a man, you are seen as as a threat to women and children by virtue of the fact that you are a man.

To some extent, those of us who represent fathers have found CAFCASS to be helpful because at least CAFCASS objectively considered the objections of mothers and saw through those objections which were weak and balanced them with the benefits to children of having a relationship with both parents.

Now listen to this.

CAFCASS are taking up to a year to produce reports and with public spending due to be cut by 25% one would not expect this situation to improve. It is already getting worse and I predict that with the situation as it is CAFCASS will stop producing reports at all.

157 Courts are earmarked for closure around the country.

These things will not help you. Don’t moan about it though because we are wasting our time moaning. (Yes, there are some new proposals from the new coalition government which are encouraging but don’t be relying on that right now.)

Now, more than ever you need to understand the way Family Law works and as a father you need a Lawyer who will fight your case  and who understands the system.

I just watched the second part of the BBC Fatherhood Season programmes.

Great viewing.

Wow!  I’ve just been watching the first programme in the BBC Fatherhood season.

One part featured a father who’d been away at war for three years. He came home for a week’s leave to children who were thrilled to see him. He died a week after returning to the front and there is a daughter who will remember him forever.

Think about it. Three years without seeing your parent but no contact centres, no attachment issues, no CAFCASS and no Mum’s new boyfriend getting in the way. No drama, no psychology.

I was in one of my local courts with a male client recently. He was accompanied by his sister. The sister pointed out to me that she was bewildered by the posters everywhere portraying only women as victims of abuse.

My client and his sister both have a fair idea, before he goes into court, of what he will be up against.

(This is based on a comment earlier today here. )

Report from today’s Daily Mail here.

There are quite a lot of good points in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech about families. It is pointed out that the previous government was “obsessed with micromanaging every aspect of family life” and “forgot what families really need”.

However the new rights promised for grandparents are less sweeping than is claimed. The fact is that Grandparents already do have rights.

The current law and the proposed change.

Under the current law a person can make an application to a court for things like contact or residence orders but most people -other than parents – usually have to ask the permission of the court first. This seems reasonable because otherwise even a person with very little connection with a child could disrupt a family by bringing court proceedings.The proposed change in the law will mean that a grandparent will automatically be able to apply, without the need for the court’s permission in the same way that a parent can.

Although this sounds significant, the reality is that for almost any normal case the courts already give that permission to grandparents.

The most significant effect of the proposed change seems to me that it takes out a procedural “hurdle” but it is a hurdle which should hardly be a big deal anyway.

An other effect may be that it gives some small “symbolic” legal status to grandparents – as people who no longer need permission of the court to apply for court orders.

The real barriers that grandparents come up with are similar to those of parents denied contact with their children. If a custodial parent opposes your contact you will still find yourself up against that.