[Solved] Use od richard warshak research

I agree that changing residency in some cases would resolve matters, or indeed just the threat of it should act as a deterrent. There are more cases of this happening, but as previous replies say, it's often hard for the court to establish who is telling the truth. I've been in many enforcement hearings where the reasons given for breaches can sound relatively plausible. Many parents who are intent on alienation are skilled manipulators and from a court's point of view, how do you sift through that?

I agree, that manipulation can be difficult to disentangle to get to the truth, this is where fully introducing the law of child abuse into this domain should not only be expected, but demanded.

The excuses or reasons given may well be plausible, however it does not make them probable. The excuses given should be evaluated against apparent probability rather then plausibility.

The earth was once considered flat, and this was plausible, evidence now shows it is round. There are still groups of people who consider the earth is flat, so the principle remains plausible even though the evidence demonstrates it is not probable.

It appears that family court is the only area of law where flawed thinking, even with evidence based countance to the accepted principle (bowlby vs warshak) is pervasive.

I dont even believe or consider the argument "maybe they are unaware they are doing it" viable. elsewhere in law, the defense of ignorance is not accepted. So why here?

It appears to me that government and the law system have identified a good revenue generator and are not prepared to relinquish it. (How may court proceeds end up in just one proceed) it is inevitable I suspect that most cases have at least 2 visits. As the fact that an order has to go back to court to be enforced gives a inhospitable parent a free pass at least once.

And this is where there is an obvious answer.

If a court considers all cases of required enforcement proceedings as implacable hostility, where the probability (not plausibility)of the reason given that necessitated the need for an enforcement action to come about is negligible or small when compared to the probability that the likelihood of the action itself (reason for dispute) would have caused unreasonable damage or is evidence of neglect or inappropriate example of lack of child welfare . Then this should invoke child abuse actions. It is then for the errant parent to demonstrate that the actions though plausible were required.

This approach would also stop stupid breeches of orders where a child may inadvertently hurt themselves ie falling when running, and a parent considers it evidence of neglect and therefore justified in breaching an order. This also reduces a parents need to go to A and E to get a graze examined just to demonstrate the parent has appropriate consideration for the childs welfare.

On the other side there are many enforcement applications made where the resident parent isn't actually in breach, but the non-resident parent wants to be continually difficult. This quite often happens with genuine cases of previous abuse that have slipped through the system. It works both ways. For every alienating, allegation toting resident parent, there will an equivalent number of abusive, controlling non-resident parents.

The system is changing and has changed greatly over the years, and will continue to do so but the government certainly aren't coining it in when the average court application costs an average of £200 irrespective of how many hearings there are.

As said in your other thread, I think you need to change attitude slightly, jump through the hoops and focus on going forward.

Best of luck

I don't buy it - of course the government are coining it in. There is a much bigger overall picture than how much the average court application costs.

By enforcing the system that is in place, men are seen as wallets to provide maintenance. As the highest earners in most families, the most logical choice is to allow mothers residency in the majority of cases. There are so many posts on this forum showing how inflexible and unfair the government are when it comes to collecting cash from fathers.

Legal aid has all but ended - the government are still saving a fortune. Fathers who self-represent have no legal advice to rely on whatsoever - those that can afford it end up paying huge sums for legal representation. District judges are paid in excess of £132,000 per year, not to mention the other members of the legal profession who are raking it in at the expense of fathers who are simply trying to do the right thing for their children and fight a system that is still biased and a court system that is secretive and about as transparent as mud.

Council housing for mothers is almost a given - for fathers it is most certainly not. By granting residency to mothers and refusing housing to fathers, many of whom end up being homeless or renting small properties whilst their wages are reaped and they end up living close to if not in poverty (often losing homes that they have worked their lives or many years for), the government again save a lot of money. Unless a court order stipulates at least 50 per cent custody, councils refuse to provide properties to fathers with more than one bedroom.

I have now experienced first hand what this court system is capable of. I have never, and would never, do anything to hurt my children emotionally or physically, through direct action or inaction. I have extensive proof that the mother of my children (and her children) have been abusive, physically and mentally, to our children. That she has put our children in dangerous situations, even to the point where there is potential for loss of life, and been neglectful on levels that are astounding. This isn't hearsay, this is recorded evidence, often with direct admissions by the mother. The results so far (nearly one year down the line) are months in between hearings, my children still living with their mother, cafcass are not allowed to view the recordings and their findings are therefore made without critical evidence, the mother perpetrating extreme parental alienation even up to the present, the courts losing vital documents that coincidentally always favour the mother. Instead of justice, I am treated as the fall guy, constantly having to defend myself against false allegations despite overwhelming evidence that my ex partner is a habitual liar, evidence from official sources such as schools, doctors and even the council and social services. If this was a normal court of law, my ex partner would be thrown out for lack of credibility.

The government should be held accountable with absolute and complete transparency - they should invest in better court procedures, more staff, more training and allow the courts and cafcass to be effective and timely in their handling of cases.

Money is the root of this evil and whilst mothers are raking in benefits, maintenance and housing; solicitors, barristers, judges and the government are making and saving money hand over fist, without ever being held accountable, I doubt that things will change.