[Solved] what actually happens to mothers

Hi there

Not a lot is the simple answer! There are very rare cases where a mother has been sent to prison, or had residency transferred to the father....fines are a difficult area because a judge would feel that fining a mother could easily have a negative impact on the children if finances are tight. They can also be ordered to do unpaid work in the community.

We have some members that have lost previously ordered contact, due to the extreme hostility of the mother...again this isn't common but it does happen.

We're told that courts are taking a tougher line on parents that breach orders, but on the whole movement in that direction is slow.

Some people do record picks up for their own safety, to prove that any hostility doesn't come from them.

I would always advise making an application for enforcement if there are continual breaches.

I agree, not a lot happenss in many cases, hopefully that will start to change, but ot will be a slow process. Rebecca Minnock is probably the best known case of residency being tranferred, with the mother narrowly avoiding jail for absconding.

I agree, not a lot happenss in many cases, hopefully that will start to change, but ot will be a slow process. Rebecca Minnock is probably the best known case of residency being tranferred, with the mother narrowly avoiding jail for absconding.

There is also Victoria Haigh, the "mother" who coached her daughter to make allegations against the father, to the point where the child began to believe the allegations as truth (they were entirely fabricated, according to: 3 judges, cafcass, the child's school, child guardian and a child psychologist).

Due of the internet campaign of harassment instigated by the mother (when it was clear the Courts were not going to believe her story), and still going on today, the judge released details of the judgements to the public domain in a bid to clear the name of the father.

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed85810

Victoria Haigh was sentenced to 3 yrs in prison for breaching non-mol order. The case makes interesting but harrowing reading!

Maybe a bit more going on there with mums mental state or personality

I'm expecting some slander from my ex when I go to court, none of which will be true but she's an ex for a reason

How interesting that in spite of the determination of the courts the Daily Mail still reported very sympathetically on Ms. Haigh

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169476/Mother-branded-liar-calling-ex-[censored]-abuser-jailed-defying-courts-daughter.html

The Telegraph took more heed of the facts than prejudice though

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8716719/Mother-coached-daughter-to-make-[censored]-abuse-claims-court-rules.html

Ho hum, what a world we live in.

Fantastic so nothing happens so it's possible I could say to the judge this is the 18th time in here and I still havnt seen my son ,what would the judge day or do nothing lol

Possible never to see your son again seems hard to stomach if nothing can be done

Many contributors to to this website will sympathise with you Danbruno1105, and I wish I could tell you tat the courts will sort it all out for you and enforce their orders,but I will not mislead you by telling you that is the case.
It would be better to try to sort this out with the child's mother, perhaps try to persuade her that it t will be in his best interests to maintain close contact with you. If you cannot do that I'm afraid it may be an uphill struggle through the courts (but that does not mean it will not be worth it in the end). Always be fair and reasonable in arranging handovers for your son, keep accurate and unbiased records,if necessary take someone (perhaps a family member) with you when you collect and return your son.
Good fortune Danbruno1105.

How interesting that in spite of the determination of the courts the Daily Mail still reported very sympathetically on Ms. Haigh

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169476/Mother-branded-liar-calling-ex-[censored]-abuser-jailed-defying-courts-daughter.html

The Telegraph took more heed of the facts than prejudice though

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8716719/Mother-coached-daughter-to-make-[censored]-abuse-claims-court-rules.html

Ho hum, what a world we live in.

It is indeed interesting how this case polarised the media. But, it was Chris Brooker (who writes for the Telegraph) who was the main "supporter" of Ms. Haigh. His one-sided reporting was even highlighted by the Judge!

Since the "mother" was released from jail, she has dedicated herself to making "internet allegations" from Ireland/France, and has aligned herself with other "internet cranks" each of whom dedicate an inordinate amount of time claiming the state/police/cafcass/judges/barristers/solicitors/Family courts "steal children from families"....
This is an obvious ruse to give her prior actions/allegations some sense of purpose and meaning, rather than simply admitting she was wrong and moving on.

The ironic thing is, Ms. Haigh was granted supervised visits with the child in question, but refused them (as the judge makes clear) .... so not only did she emotionally abuse her child, she abandoned the child as well. Of course, as a true horse-loving narcissist Ms. Haigh refuses to accept that any of her actions (or the public internet campaign) have had a negative impact on the child.

I have never read about more obstinate, self-centered narcissistic people than those guilty parties in this case. That old adage about the mental stability of "women who appear to love horses more than their own children" (Ms. Haigh is a horse fanatic) appears to be proven in this case, unfortunately.

Anyway - the point here is that the courts do "eventually" get around to penalising the resident parent (where this is warranted), although the process is usually slow and gradual, for reasons associated with the best interests and welfare of the child.

... a well informed comment I am sure TashasHideousLaugh, but I can't help disagreeing with your final point in that most of the time the courts do not get round to enforcing family orders and penalising those mothers that take no notice of them. There is (in my humble opinion) a huge amount of anecdotal evidence in these pages to suggest that Ms. Haigh's case is a very rare one indeed.
Best wishes.

In my opinion any mother who denies access of the children to the father when there are no safeguarding or welfare issues should have the children taken from them and the father given residency without hesitation as the mothers by virtue of their actions display an unhealthy threat to the welfare of the children. This is obvious to the court system by the mere fact fathers are forced to take court action to gain access to their children and yet it is they who are scrutinized and the mother's action in denying access usually overlooked. It is interesting to note how many times a father is told by professionals "not to rock the boat" when fighting for access even when they have something of a serious nature to impart. which is relevant and true.

Equality between the genders does not exist in this scenario. I wonder why? Could it be that it is such a money spinner? Look at the jobs and money generated by disputes taken to court caused by unreasonable mothers. If the system ceased to be as biased towards the mother as it is at present and residency given to the father at the first sign of denying access, look at the jobs and careers that would be in jeopardy or even unnecessary, Barristers, Solicitors, CAFCASS Officers, Secretaries, Court Officials, Office Clerks to name a few. Unemployment figures would rise and the healthy financial climate that exists within the legal system would decline. I don't think it would be acceptable to them, would it?

I believe the system is a money making machine borne out of the misery and suffering of the fathers and because of that will not readily change.

motherofafather...well said.

if only the people in charge of the "system" could see as clearly as you