UK Family Law Reform

Free information index

----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor
To: david
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: MOJ/DoE Co-Parenting Consultation Response: Govt to introduce legislative change to Children Act 1989 to support involvement of both parent's in child's life after family breakdown

All this is very bad. The caveat about violence must be removed.
The State sometimes takes a child into care. The judge must not be allowed to decide violence has occurred. That issue must be transferred by the judge to the criminal court. A caveat that a parent with a criminal record can be cut off from its child is the only acceptable caveat. It is not acceptable for a parent to be cut off from its child if violence has been determined “on the balance of probability”.
Ivor

----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor
To: david
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:13 PM
Subject: Outcomes

I proposed statistical research into outcomes for children whose children’s parents went through divorce under a particular judge. Although there is no support for such research, all available evidence tells us that a large proportion of people in prison were cut off form their fathers when young. Truanting increased threefold, along with suicide, drug abuse, running away form home, teenage pregnancy. However, I knew long ago that research into outcomes should be unhooked from cutting off the father. If one judge caused far worse outcome than another, or one social worker worse than another, we would know that the first judge was damaging children. Of course, he might be doing this by cutting off the father, but it might be for some other reason in his procedures.

What is extraordinary, and what demonstrates how difficult and complex our problem is, is that only now, after decades, I realised that judges should welcome such research. I assumed judges would put the avoidance of accountability first. However, at least some judges will be reasonable and well meaning, only causing damage due to their wrong ideology, for instance their belief in falsified statistics on domestic violence. They would learn to change their behaviour as a result of such research, and perhaps all judges would prefer to damage less children.
Ivor Catt

----- Original Message -----
From: emily4kids@googlemail.com
To: david
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 1:28 AM
Subject: RE: Family Law and the definition of DV

It is worth noting that in the wider community and other jurisdictions, the acts of child abduction, harmful indoctrination of minor children, perjury, and non- compliance of court orders, are regarded as abusive acts of family violence, child abuse, and violations of human rights.

But in the context of Family Law, such behaviours astonishingly, are not recognized as abusive acts of family violence and abuse, and in fact the perpetrators are rewarded for their actions. If they were to be accepted as abusive acts, the gender landscape and ratio of perpetrators and victims would look entirely different.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ivor
To: david
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: MOJ/DoE Co-Parenting Consultation Response: Govt to introduce legislative change to Children Act 1989 to support involvement of both parent's in child's life after family breakdown

See below;
“the court is to presume, unless the contrary is shown, that the welfare of the child concerned will be furthered by involvement in the child's upbringing of each parent of the child who can be involved in a way not adverse to the child's safety"”

The Mens’ Movement must totally oppose this linkage between a child’s right of access to its parent and Domestic Violence. It is likely that legislation which adds any such assertion to a statement of a child’s rights will not be worth the paper it is written on. There is no other situation where radfem propaganda is inserted in legislation. The decision as to whether the father is violent is made “on the balance of probability” by the judge in a family court. In my case, when I was ousted, I did not know that there was a court hearing. The secrecy of the hearing is presumably because it was assumed that if I heard of it, I would physically attack my wife.

Should we read the legislation enacting compulsory education for all children up to a certain age, it will not contain the proviso ”compulsory education ‘in a way not adverse to the child's safety’ “ Fitgerald always subverted ManKind into falling for this radfem trap. If no other similar legislation contains this caveat, why should it appear here?

Ivor Catt

----- Original Message -----
From: bpw@freenetname.co.uk

To: david
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: The problem is not the law but how it's applied.

Hi Dave,

the lack of feedback on the outcome of cases, that you mention, has been stated in Cheltenham Group submissions to the government.

Barry Worrall

http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/court.htm

Surely there is every good reason for all the groups in the UK to unite & put child protection issues first' given they are our future & child protection issues are given paramount consideration.

http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/ukfamilylawreform/