C C Smale Family Lawyer

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 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. )

I welcome the guidance that has recently been given by two of the country’s most senior Family Court Judges.

Often one parent makes allegations about the other parent’s behaviour. For example, in a case about a father’s contact with a child the mother may make some allegation that the father has been violent.

There has been a tendency in recent years for the courts to fix a hearing early in the case called a “fact finding” hearing so the court can decide whether the allegation is proved. So, in the example of a child contact case, once the “facts” have been established in a fact finding hearing the case then progresses to further hearings to decide on what contact there should be between the child and their father.

Lord Justice Wall has now issued guidance which says that separate fact finding hearings should only take place if the allegations whether admitted or proved would make a difference to the eventual order made by the court. This follows an earlier case where Lord Justice Thorpe said that costs in the Family Courts are”worryingly high”.

This seems sensible to me. I have never understood why time and expense is wasted so much on arguing points that do not have relevance to the eventual outcome of a case. In the same way, I cannot understand why people with too much of their own or other people’s money to spend think that paying for psychological and other “expert” evidence is helpful to their case or to their child.

Although this website is not intended to be aimed at technical or legal people, if you are interested a report on Lord Justice Thorpe’s comments is here.

The guidance given by Lord Justice Wall is here.