A woman whose husband has been sentenced to 19 years in prison for a series of rapes against two women, one of which was her, is campaigning for a change in the law to prevent offenders from being able to further abuse their victims through the Family Courts.
Now divorced from her husband, Nicola Richardson has waived her right to anonymity to speak out about her experience.
During Nicola’s divorce her ex husband tried to use the Family Courts to coerce and intimidate her by stalling the separation and filing financial claims. The judge handling the divorce branded her husband “manipulative, controlling and domineering.”
Nicola would like to see the law changed so that convicted abusers who are sent to jail are barred from filing claims against their victims in Family Court. Nicola doesn’t go on to explain how she sees this law working, however a solution could lie in creating a threshold: if it can be shown that the claims are vexatious or likely to cause the victim significant harm, Family judges could use the current powers they have to prevent further applications, both financial and contact related.
We already know that domestic abuse can include financial manipulation. This kind of coercion doesn’t stop once an application for divorce or separation takes place, and this also needs to be highlighted. Guidelines for family professionals on domestic abuse and behaviours during divorce or separation including conduct during family court proceedings should be issued as well. The recent concerns over domestic violence offenders being able to cross examine their victims in court demonstrates the effect of this kind of behaviour which can cause serious health problems including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and depression.
Playing devil’s advocate for a moment, the proposal doesn’t sit comfortably with working legal principles, which demand that a balance is struck between the rights of the person making a claim and those affected by the claim. In contact cases for example, judges may argue that an abuser’s right to see his or her children is separate from the victim’s right to be free of abuse and that a child’s right to know his or her parent is the most important right of all.
However, others may argue that an abuser should lose all their rights to contact or financial remedy against the victim, not only as a deterrent to others, but also to protect all vulnerable parties including the victim. In 2015, we wrote about a case where a mother who was attacked by her husband and had her throat cut in front of her small children, was then forced by a judge to send her husband letters whilst serving time for what was essentially attempted murder. The case sparked national outrage and a petition was created to revoke the order.
It is a difficult dilemma, but one that’s important. How do we weight up the rights of everyone concerned and what facts should take precedence over law, if and when they should?
We’d love to hear your thoughts.
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
[Name Withheld] said:
This is Why When the Court gave my lovely children to my ex and they thought I would beg him to take me back. I had been through so much with my terrible ex [edited] he had done so many things to me. I was constantly ill. I had to change this pattern and once he had left our home. Apart from the utter relief. I had decided I could never ever have anything to do with this man any more or any one who resembled him in any way. This was before we even went to court about the children who he was not interested in at all and would not look after while I even went to the corner shop. He took my children purely out of spite. To do the final thing he could do to me. And British Judge [edited] helped him take my lovely children and even if that Judge had Not made that final order he would have killed me before I could get my children.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Thank you for your comment, we’re so sorry. Apologies also for editing your comment, we have to do this for legal reasons.
LikeLike
maureenjenner said:
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Victims need protection and should be afforded this – as of right –
under the law.
LikeLike
marilyn hawes said:
here we go again – the horror of the family Courts !!!!! They protract the abuse and keep it alive rather than protect !!
As we are debating family courts – We don’t understand either if someone IS considered to be an abuser why that person does not then go onto the Criminal courts/? THAT in itself is injustice
LikeLike
Richard Grenville said:
No it isn’t an injustice, Family Courts have an entirely different purpose [i.e. the future care, welfare, and safety of children] to Criminal Courts [i.e. the commission of a crime for which there are severe punishments], and the latter therefore requires a much higher standard of evidential proof.
LikeLike
tummum said:
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLike
Pingback: Family Court Loophole Lets Rapists Intimidate Their Victims, In Jail | tummum's Blog
Richard Grenville said:
Any person who commits crimes of domestic and/or sexual violence against their partner/ spouse, which inherently involve the abuse of children and/or similar offences against their children, should automatically forfeit their rights as a parent, and the burden of proof should be upon them to prove that they are no longer a risk to those children.
The protection of harm and exploitation for children must always be the paramount factor, as stated in the UN CRoC and all parental rights should be subordinate to such factors. To do otherwise is to condone, collude in, and collaborate with, the abuse of children.
LikeLike
Forced Adoption said:
Forget about parental rights then and think about the rights of the children to stay with the argumentative or even violent but parents they know and may well love rather than be parked out with strangers who work for cash and may well abuse them and who let them end up in jail or as prostitutes as do so many victims of State Care.
NO PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME !!
LikeLike
Forced Adoption said:
A bad parent is usually better for a child than State Care where they are open to abuse without recourse and so many end up in jail or a prostitutes or both ! If the parent is sane and has committed no crime against children then the children should never be taken away for fostering or forced adoption
LikeLike