[Solved] Twisted Ramblings of a Mad Man

Oh its the other way, Im protecting myself from the lies, Im not intending on bringing out the dead unless Im called the murderer.

Sorry, that probably didn't come out the way I intended - I realise that, I was just making sure you protect yourself from any allegations she might make on that score.

No offence here!

I had a close friend whos a new mum read the letter back, she visited when new and all that, had been used as a soundboard by ex for feed etc who just looked flabbergasted and said 'thats just lies; I cant believe it"

All I could say was "aye, and I almost married her"

CAFCASS report in, Im told its fine so Im trying not to worry.

Suggested mediation again which I believe is futile.

However, I had a joke with her that I didnt babysit, and she said no you're right I should stop saying that, I reiterated I was 'only messing' yet this is in the report written as a 'real problem'. I think I became too relaxed.

I have gotten myself banned from netmums for suggesting sending your kid out the room for a ciggie is poor parenting, the feminazi are moderators too. Not seeing it actually does make me feel better, I mean they annoy me because my position of fatherhood doesnt change, just theirs.

Anyway, I was supposed to go on putlocker and clicked the wrong history thing and saw this

"Im a terrible mother
Well that's what I am basically.
I am not a nice person at all, I don't talk nice to my children, don't even know how to deal with them, I end up just getting mad constantly and swear at them, which I know is so wrong, but its like I can't even control what comes out of my mouth, it is ridiculous.
I hate it. I couldn't get enough of them when they were little, now it's like I can't even tolerate them."

this is a perfect example of what happens when a mother describes a father as doing this and a mothe describes herself.
She's not a bad mother chick

FHDRA tomorrow, dont I wish these principles were actually true.....

these even

my pics wont load!!

Well,

Today was my FHDRA.

What a shower of shite that was. A room full of women against me.

The ex has employed a solicitor that is often used in social service cases and knew most of the court by first name.

There was no negotiation, at all, they arrived 10 mins prior to the hearing and I didnt see a CAFCASS officer until the court room.

mckenezie friend gave position statement and her solicitor told him he cant do that, and then "in what capacity?".

In the room there was a legal advisor, a 60 year old CAFCASS worker.

MF mentioned, solicitor said "whatever, I dont know who he is"

Ex mentioned child care and the legal advisor was "yeah you'll have to start soon you know its really hard finding a place", ha ha rolf rolf.....

CAFCASS started with misquoting my childs age and telling me its very concerning that I have made an application so young...

the ex solicitor said they had no principle objection to the contact proposal then the CAFCASS chirped in that they thought what I had was enough and that was that.

Then ex solicitor sat and told a shed load of lies about me, flat out lies about conduct and all sorts, zero evidence.

CAFCASS said whether you meant to intimidate or not thats how she feels......and shes the primary carer.

When I mentioned feeling marginalised and having contact removed ...she was 'sure' that wasnt the intention. And that the ex was keen on maintaining it??!

I was inwardly screaming THATS WHY IM F**G HERE< BECAUSE SHE DOES, BECAUSE HE'S SO F**G YOUNG, its better now, it has to stop.

Essentially 'ended' with us (me) being told off for not communicating, ex admitted not letting me see prior to holiday as she didnt think Id return!!, yet my whole worry about the same was labelled as insecure by her solicitor and that I need to get a grip and that Im struggling to get over the relationship...I ended it and Im truly very glad I did, Im not struggling with that aspect in the least.

Solicitor pushing for no order principle believing any slip up would lead to enforcement. (and leaving control firmly placed in ex)

Basically adjourned for 4 weeks and possibility of judge led conciliation? whatever that means.

solicitor spoke over me telling ,me I knew about another holiday then couldn't recall the dates and neither could ex confirm, unnoticed of course.I requested to move forward and not have things removed if we fall out. They reminded that we needed to agree and compromise and give and take, this will undoubtedly mean I have to accept my lot.

Futhermore, I found it very concerning that her incredibly adversarial solicitor was appointed to write the undertakings up - that we will communicate and I will have all contact (whilst asking for permission to go away again after the legal advisor said there should be no problem). Do I get a letter? from her solicitor? what if it is not how it was represented in court?

oh yes, said they cant state what son is to do over next 2 years as he is too young, but contact was sufficient due to his age? Any attempts at a progression schedule were scoffed as controlling or not in his best interests. So Im to trust his mum to let me know...

Hmmm, the solicitor should have drawn that up before you all left giving you chance to read what had been written and make sure it was accurate. It's quite standard practise for a barrister / solicitor to draw up the directions / order at the end of a hearing.

Hopefully you will be able to agree before the next hearing. Haven't come across the conciliation much but sounds like you will have to stand your ground and try to get some progression scheduled.

Sigh.

Hello Twiston, I'm not familiar with court procedure and the abbreviations used on here so I'm handicapped to a degree.

You asked me in a previous message:-
1) how old are our children, one is 18 months the other 30 months old.
2) was the 90% agreed, the answer is no (mother objected to everything). The father put in a request for an amount of contact, the Cafcass officer agreed,
the judge reduced it to 90% of what was requested this was at the final hearing.
3) an opportunity has been given to go back within the year, assumedly to refine things if need be.
I think this may have been offered as there was a bit of a [censored] up in that a person requested to be there double booked and wasn't available.

After the final hearing I felt such injustice particularly as solid proof of her behaviour had been obtained and it was a perfect time to unveil the real woman. The woman who had caused such havoc, grief and mayhem in all our lives. It was not to be! In hindsight I now, truly believe, the judges can see right through these women and that they see no value in even wanting to know who has done what to whom unless of course it affects the child. I don't feel so upset now as her evil lies have been challenged albeit on paper and importantly the truth from people who bore witness is too.

In this case mediation was not viable so it was straight to court to get access as she was denying contact. Some months later the second hearing which stipulated overnights could begin. Then the final hearing.

I believe mediation is a waste of time with some of these woman! My approach is don't beat about the bush go to court, get contact
I don't understand why babies cannot be with there fathers. I totally disagree with people who say they must be with their mother, they are too young, RUBBISH. Why are so many babies put into nursery with strangers when they are only weeks old. We are talking of fathers here not [censored] strangers.

I don't understand Twiston, was it your first hearing, magistrates, judge?
I believe from the beginning to the end of this process the judiciary push as hard as they can to make parents talk to each other and I think it may shame some of those mothers to do just that. However it needs to be stipulated in a Court Order the details of contact, that's when you know for sure where you stand. I don't like the idea of not having anything binding when mothers behave so appallingly. They may change their mind next month.

You are hurting badly, we know how it feels.
You have a fantastic sense of humour, I think you should park that outside before entering court, I am sad to say.
You have a wealth of common sense but remember you may be dealing with some who haven't.

You WILL get there.

Hmmm, the solicitor should have drawn that up before you all left giving you chance to read what had been written and make sure it was accurate. It's quite standard practise for a barrister / solicitor to draw up the directions / order at the end of a hearing.

Hopefully you will be able to agree before the next hearing. Haven't come across the conciliation much but sounds like you will have to stand your ground and try to get some progression scheduled.

Sigh.

and of course she was so adversarial I've no idea what will be said. I was informed I knew all about the next holiday (the solicitor cut me off saying I didnt know) but then there was no date confirmed - this is going in the letter - when mum knows the dates - of course this was ignored, as was mum admitting she stopped contact prior to holiday as thought I wouldn't return, but that being my fear was unreasonable. It very much felt like they believe I've intimidated this poor primary carer and if I meant to or not yet my feelings of marginalisation (I dont even know what he weighs) were in my head and I was insecure. Tell me this, I even asked cafcass this, if my disagreement with mum means I lose contact how can I not be insecure about it????. It was like she was a paragon of virtue.

This is my frustration, CAFCASS seemed to be able to say contact was sufficient at the childs age but that they couldnt do a schedule because of the childs age???

It was like they were saying the court cant provide security and certianly cant plan until 18, I never asked that and tried to state that with some security and guidance we could return to co-parenting, her solicitor loudly THE COURT CANT GIVE YOU THAT see we need a no order principle! erm, yes it can, They essentially want me to trust mum to say when ready to progress, how can that be fair? It really was a bit of a womens forum and I was so unreasonable for requesting such. Is it so bad to request we try overnights by a certain point? they think so due to age. I think there was an agreement my contact would stay for a month.

Im not sure anything helped me bar them saying childcare should be vetted by us both and needs give and take.And we need to trust each other again.

Hello Twiston, I'm not familiar with court procedure and the abbreviations used on here so I'm handicapped to a degree.

You asked me in a previous message:-
1) how old are our children, one is 18 months the other 30 months old.
2) was the 90% agreed, the answer is no (mother objected to everything). The father put in a request for an amount of contact, the Cafcass officer agreed,
the judge reduced it to 90% of what was requested this was at the final hearing.
3) an opportunity has been given to go back within the year, assumedly to refine things if need be.
I think this may have been offered as there was a bit of a [censored] up in that a person requested to be there double booked and wasn't available.

After the final hearing I felt such injustice particularly as solid proof of her behaviour had been obtained and it was a perfect time to unveil the real woman. The woman who had caused such havoc, grief and mayhem in all our lives. It was not to be! In hindsight I now, truly believe, the judges can see right through these women and that they see no value in even wanting to know who has done what to whom unless of course it affects the child. I don't feel so upset now as her evil lies have been challenged albeit on paper and importantly the truth from people who bore witness is too.

In this case mediation was not viable so it was straight to court to get access as she was denying contact. Some months later the second hearing which stipulated overnights could begin. Then the final hearing.

I believe mediation is a waste of time with some of these woman! My approach is don't beat about the bush go to court, get contact
I don't understand why babies cannot be with there fathers. I totally disagree with people who say they must be with their mother, they are too young, RUBBISH. Why are so many babies put into nursery with strangers when they are only weeks old. We are talking of fathers here not [censored] strangers.

I don't understand Twiston, was it your first hearing, magistrates, judge?
I believe from the beginning to the end of this process the judiciary push as hard as they can to make parents talk to each other and I think it may shame some of those mothers to do just that. However it needs to be stipulated in a Court Order the details of contact, that's when you know for sure where you stand. I don't like the idea of not having anything binding when mothers behave so appallingly. They may change their mind next month.

You are hurting badly, we know how it feels.
You have a fantastic sense of humour, I think you should park that outside before entering court, I am sad to say.
You have a wealth of common sense but remember you may be dealing with some who haven't.

You WILL get there.

thank you and whilst you say they can see right through it was like a bear baiting session for how [censored] I am of a person, she repeatedly 'forgot' my name and my claims of marginalisation dismissed, the legal advisor (not judge) was having quieter child care conversation with mum, Im happy if this calms down but I still want a review as 4 week sis no time at all, and her solicitor will fiercely oppose this as they want me to be seen as a [censored]