Welcome to another week.
A new case published on 2nd July offers insight into a different judicial perspective on violent parents — and young children’s engagement with family judges — but also goes to some trouble to highlight a wide range of factors which led to the decision.
The case involved a mother of two daughters who had been stabbed 15 times by her partner in 2019, following a history of domestic abuse which included the father serving a prison term in 2016 for assaulting the mother. The father was sentenced to a minimum of 13 and a half years in prison for the attempted murder of the mother.
The eldest daughter, who is now seven, witnessed the attack when she was five, and was struck in the face by her father’s elbow as he stabbed her mother. The mother suffered serious life-changing injuries. Both the mother and the daughter continue to have therapeutic counselling for the attack.
On 4th April, 2020, the police received a report from Crime Stoppers that the father had called through to say the mother was going to be murdered that day. Around the same period, the mother had received two Instagram friend requests (which she declined), from two relatives of the father.
The mother decided to bring two applications to the court: one for the termination of the father’s parental responsibility for both daughters, now aged seven and two, and another to change the girls’ surname from their father’s name.
The oldest daughter also wrote to the judge explaining that she did not want to see her father ever again and that she wanted to change her surname so he could not find her.
The court granted both those requests, and gave the following reasons why it chose to do so (we have highlighted significant points of reasoning in bold which appear to show a shift in the court’s thinking on child welfare, and we have also explained the shifts in italic writing):
(i) The father will be in prison until at least March 2033, by which time X will be an adult and Y a teenager. The father will not be able to exercise his parental responsibility in any meaningful way until then;
(Prior judgments have concluded that a parent in prison can offer some meaning to a child’s life).
(ii) The girls’ physical, emotional and educational welfare can only be met by them having no contact with their father, direct or indirect – there is no need for him to exercise parental responsibility;
(Past cases where one parent has tried to murder the other parent and the offending parent has asked for contact often succeed, making this judgment a departure in some ways from that base line. The shift seems to represent an understanding that a child’s needs, particularly if she or he has witnessed violence and is afraid of that parent, are sometimes better served by creating boundaries).
(iii) Further than that, there is a risk of harm to the girls if he were to exercise his parental responsibility for them. He played only a limited role in the girls’ life previously, he holds strongly negative views about the mother, her parenting capacity and the wider maternal family. He has shown no insight into the impact of his actions on the children and continues to represent a high risk to them and their mother. In the circumstances, the Court can have no confidence that he would exercise his parental responsibility for the benefit of his children;
(Past case law on parents who have played a limited role in a child’s life suggests that the policy has been to welcome contact, usually by a father, if a request for contact is made. Critics of current policy on contact say the pendulum has swung too far in favour of parents who don’t genuinely wish to have contact and are simply using it to abuse ex partners and their children.)
(iv) There is a real risk that he could use his parental responsibility to undermine the mother as a parent, or for the purpose of causing her or the children harm, for example by contacting schools or doctors to obtain information about them or their whereabouts;
(v) The father’s relentless negativity about the mother as a parent makes it clear that there is no prospect of him being able to co-parent with her and she should not have to consult with him before making significant decisions about the children;
(vi) If the father had not been registered on the girls’ birth certificates there is no prospect that any application he should make now for parental responsibility would be granted;
(vii) The fact that the father was registered on the girls’ birth certificates in the first place does not carry significant weight (a) in circumstances where the mother alleges she was subject to the father’s control and (b) where the law provides that an application to the Court may be made for both the discharge of parental responsibility and a name change in appropriate circumstances;
(An interesting comment, which suggests that where a parent has been violent and controlling, as in this case, parental rights could be stripped from abusive parents.)
(viii) The father continues to be assessed as a high risk to both mother and the girls. To permit the mother to change their names would be consistent with their welfare and enable her to act protectively;
(ix) X is traumatised by her memories and experiences of her father. A change of name is consistent with her strongly expressed wishes and feelings;
(Family judges often overlook trauma children experience at the hands of violent parents, even if they are not the primary victims, preferring instead to try and ‘mend’ the relationship between the child and parent even in extreme cases of violence. This judgment seems to represent a shift away from that, giving the child’s views weight and thinking ahead to the long-term implications of keeping ties which are, at a given point in time, very painful for a child, but also ultimately taking a different view on the effect of that disconnect.)
(x) Y has no memory of her father and no established relationship with him. The name she holds is nonetheless a continued reminder for all the family of the experiences her mother and sister have had as a consequence of the father’s actions and it is in all their welfare interests for that name to be changed;
(xi) The girls have no relationship with their extended paternal family and no positive associations with the second name they have been given. The applications do not represent a significant interference with theirs or their father’s right to a family life.
Though we think this judgment falls on the right side of the child welfare balance, we can see there may be some push back on it. Several aspects of the judgment go against established views and principles on contact with violent parents, but it is, to our mind at least, right, and represents an acknowledgment of the fact that some bad experiences can’t be mended or soothed by the law.
And rather critically, we think, it touches upon something significant – the idea that a parent who abuses the other parent cannot have their child’s best interests at heart, knowing as they will, that the abuse will interfere with the victim parent’s ability to care for their child.
In short: the abuse of one parent by the other is a selfish act, which places the abuser’s emotional state above that of their child’s wellbeing.
You can access the full judgment here.
YET many 100% law abiding parents get worse tratment than jail birds ! Mark jailed for waving at his daughters in the street as their car passed by ! Vicky sentenced to 3 years prison (served less on appeal) for meeting her daughter accidentally at a service station,and countless mothers threatened with jail if they so much as send a birthday card or email to their children.Their offences? Believing children who accused their fathers of abusing them………..
LikeLike
I would express my total support for this ruling, in fact I am amazed that any parent found guilty of trying to murder the other, ever had permission to access or have any contact whatsoever with their offspring.
The only caveat I would add is that, even though a child may say that they will never wish to have anything to do with a parent, no-one can prophesy the future. There may be circumstances in which the child, as an adult, would need to for hereditary/health reasons. There should be some mechanism left to enable this, should it be deemed necessary, I think, or at least provide access to the birth father’s medical history.
LikeLike
The judgement didn’t even mention the stabbing as the main verdict. I think you should read it again.
LikeLike
I’ve read it again, and you’re right – but the father’s behaviour (which includes his last potentially murderous act witnessed by the elder child who was inadvertently injured) certainly plays a part in the ruling. Having lost my only child (a daughter) through the Family Court system, I hold no torch for a system which jails mothers and fathers for waving to their kids etc., but stripping a murderous thug of parental responsibility seems to me to be absolutely right. I lost my claim for parental responsibility because I was denied ever a chance to exercise it by the mother, rubber-stamped by the bovine complacency and complicity of a judge in the Family Court. At least the judge in this case wasn’t complacent or complicit.
LikeLike
This judgement concerns me. Not because a deadly and violent man who committed a potentially fatal crime is behind bars and his family have exercised their choice not to see him and have the power to do that, but because most of the reasons why he has lost his parental rights have absolutely nothing to do with the physical violence and the potentially fatal threat he poses. This is typical family court for you. These reasons can be used against anyone in an acrimonious divorce and I believe it’s deliberately setting a precident. The family courts are getting worse, not better and this is proof.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on | truthaholics.
LikeLike
Finally a judgment which ignores the repetitive ‘what about me’ rants of men and instead puts the safety, psychological needs and trauma of both a kind and protective mother and the most importantly the children first.
You were right to say that it would cause push back, as the typical MRA’s have already begun in this thread above.
What it highlights is that we need to ensure that the men who continue to ignore the safety of children and continue to put their own needs and rants before the child must become pariahs in our society, only us the public can shame anyone who continues on the misogynistic narrative of fathers rights before children’s and mothers rights.
This has been going on for 2 decades now and must change.
It is great to see that the family court is moving the pendulum back into a fairer position rather than continuing to take the fathers stance and rights.
To some degree it shows that the new coercive abuse laws which recently came into effect are beginning to show their influence in the family court which is where we campaigned for them to be used.
LikeLike
Matching rants with more rants helps no-one. Without fathers there would be no children. Without mothers there would be no children. Without decent mothers and fathers children can grow up disadvantaged (note ‘can’, not ‘will’). Women are from earth. Fathers are from earth. Deal with it. Even mothers can fail and be abusive! This is not misogyny, it’s reality.
LikeLike
Roger I’m not ranting I’m making a much needed statement without fear of being silenced by misogynistic men.
I wouldn’t expect you to understand what hell us women have been put through in the past decade in the family court as you are a man, neither would I expect you to support the mere thought the the UK family courts are misogynistic, but as you have so quaintly put ‘it is reality’.
It is interesting that you have taken a more aggressive stance with me a woman by telling me to ‘deal with it’ than you did to the man above who directly challenged your comment something which I didn’t even do.
The reality is that the UK family courts are misogynistic, and that every time a woman speaks up against MRA’s we are shot back down.
So you may not like that we are fighting back but you should just ‘deal with it’!
LikeLike
Well, the misogynistic Family Court did nothing for me! And I must stress that I’m not violent and never was accused of being so. I have been a Mckenzie friend for women and men in those Courts and, on balance, I feel that it was the non-resident parent, be it male or female, who was treated unfairly. It was, and I presume still is, fathers who are more likely to be the non-resident parent and therefore it seemed to me for a long while that it was fathers who were getting the poorer deal. I have learned, through experience, since, that women do seem to be treated dreadfully, even barbarically, if they are non-resident and sometimes in other circumstances.
I apologise if I came across as aggressive. I passionately believe that good men and women should work together for a fairer system. The Courts feed on adversarial parents. It’s an adversarial system. The judge in my case was a man. When the case was taken (by the mother) to the High Court, the judge was a woman, and it was the only time I was ever heard properly and fairly.
I am not ‘anti-woman’ but my own experience of my own time in the Family Court certainly did not give me the impression it was misogynistic! Quite the reverse. I now accept that both men and women can be treated with utter contempt in these Courts, and my case was heard (or not) fifteen years ago now. I still believe these Courts are not fit for purpose, so we are at least united in this!
LikeLike
Interestingly I have supported multiple victims of abuse through the family court over the past 6 years through my charitable work which includes writing position statements, preparing bundles and being their McKensie friendly.
My vast experience has shown me that the family court more often than not sides on the non-resident parent which are predominantly men and fails time and time again to consider the risks and impact to both mother and child.
The recent and extremely important harm report supports my findings but doesn’t support what you are saying.
Thankfully the Harm Report is now having its effect by significantly influencing much needed changes in law which in turn are producing the outcomes such as in this article.
LikeLike
Maybe things have changed over the last six or so years, it’s some while since I was in Court in any capacity. Sometimes the pendulum swings from one extreme to another, seldom does it find a happy balance. You did say that, as a man, I would not know the hell that women have to go through in these Courts. I have to protest, you shouldn’t make such assumptions. One lady I tried to help for many years (unsuccessfully) eventually lost her child to an abusive and controlling father. Her torment has caused her, some years on, severe mental illness and she is now sectioned, the child (now a teenager) alienated from her. I have seen, first hand, the hell you describe. But this hell, this torment, is not confined to women. I’ve been there too, along with many other fathers and mothers. The Court process can make people act uncharacteristically in Court. I couldn’t believe what was happening, either in the Court or to me. If I showed emotion, I was unbalanced. If I showed a lack of emotion, I obviously didn’t care. There has to be a better way than this!
The only real way forward, I feel, in changing this madness is for men and women of good faith to work together. Divided, they rule and we all lose, including the children caught up in this. United, we have a better chance. The ‘Family Division’ is the most apt name for the Family Courts!
LikeLike
Wow 360 turn! Now your most recent comment is much more true to form, now you mention that your case was a long time ago (which is what I initially thought), in the last decade the situation has become horrific, the mere mention of abuse and a mother loses her children to the abuser. You’re now saying that you do understand mothers plights that you have even been witness to a mother unforgivably losing her child to an abusive man in the family court, which in tail supports my comments. But as you say your experience is from 6 years ago, things since then have spiraled out of control hence the need for the Harm Report and consequentially the much needed reform of the domestic violence bill to include post separation abuse and coercive control through the family court.
The only way forward is for good men to stand up and say enough is enough, women have been shouting for decades, this is a male problem that only men can change, men need to shame other men who do this.
History has shown us that it is only when men stand up does change happen. You come across as one of those men.
LikeLike
Lawyers generating work for themselves. I see no reason for the father’s parental responsibility’s entering this case, much less its being, as it were, banished to Never-Never Land. That could be precedent for evacuating other people’s responsibility: maybe they prefer the wrong football team: best keep them from liking any football team at all. It is tantamount to declaring the father a non-person, not in some supposed Iron Curtain movie plot but akin to enslaving the father. Welcome to Shady Acres, your new home until your owner decides to sell you or kill you. It was enough for the judge to rule that the father here will have no access to the family given his past behavior. That would leave the possibility of reform.
LikeLike
Thank you for providing a perfect example of the despicable male attitude that currently dominates our family courts.
In your selfish comments you have only considered the man and the effect to him.
This is exactly the attitude and narrative that we MUST eradicate and shame in the UK.
Interestingly you have chosen to withhold your name, which means that you’re not a total sociopath as you do see that your comment is somewhat wrong.
What about the woman he stabbed 15 times, you have no idea of the trauma she has to relive on a daily basis having the degenerate that tried to kill her forced into her life, what about her rehabilitation or is just about men.
What about the children and what their young eyes witnessed, that trauma will stay with them for life, they have been given a life sentence because of that man, what about their healing.
You are completely wrong, if you are violent to your family, you’re out, your rehabilitation should happen before you have children, your kids should never suffer for the monster that you are.
This is long overdue, the message must be clear, if you are violent there are no second chances, you are out for good!
LikeLike
My name is [edited]. I used it when making the comment. The website deleted it.
Do you have an opinion about the court terminating the father’s parental responsibility?
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment. We remove all names of individuals, male or female, who may be engaged in family court hearings or who may still have orders in place preventing them from giving out details which may identify them, or their children. We do this because a) we do not know every posters’ personal circumstances and b) the law requires us to remove identifying details if they could lead to the identification of a child. There are exceptions to this rule: 1) if a poster shares an order with us which shows that they are not prevented from speaking out publicly 2) we know the individual and their case and know they can be named. We have to abide by these rules f we want the platform to remain accessible to everyone, as we provide information parents use on the site.
In relation to terminating parental responsibility, whether for mothers of fathers, our view is that this should be enabled where either a) a child of sound mind and appropriate maturity has requested it or b) there are tangible reasons why that parent should be removed entirely from a child’s life. We take the view that this should only happen in exceptional circumstances.
LikeLike
Dear RR Community, please be courteous to one another on the platform. These topics are sensitive and we understand many of you will have had terrible experiences, but please deliver your thoughts civilly
LikeLike
Women who have had their children stolen from them by the family court and given to their dangerous abusers is hardly an experience. Women need to speak up and stop being politically correct to those who want to keep us in the darkness. The reprimand is better suited to those in society who feel that the rights and needs of men are superior to the safety and healing of children and mothers.
This debate needs to endure, women who stand up and speak out should never be silenced by anyone.
It is censoring such as this which has slowed down the much needed change. Allow us to speak, allow us to taboo anyone who supports abusive men over the rights of victims of abuse, it is only once we are allowed to speak up without fear of reprimand will we be able to truly change the years of suffering we have had to endure.
LikeLike
Hi FFA, thanks for your comment. No one is being censored on this site – we just ask that you structure your points politely.
LikeLike
Free from abuse, my case was (not) heard fourteen years ago but I’ve tried to help others for some years since then. Anyway, thank you for your last kind comment, I’ve said more than enough, so, being a (gentle) man, I will let you have the last word!
LikeLike