What Judges Say and Do in Britain's Secret Family Court
Judges' remarks on denying contact to a parent and his/her children
Mr Justice Agliomby on refusing overnight contact for thethird consecutive year: "The point that struck me most was that the very firstquestion the father asked the mother was whether they might not get on better if she lethim see the child."
Judge Agliombi warned a father who was arguing that costs should not be ordered againsthim because the mother was depriving their child of a father: "If you go on like thisyou stand in great danger of never having staying contact with your son."
Senior District Judge Angel misinformed a complainant that "there isan unrestricted right of appeal" in contact cases. (There is, in fact, little if anyright of appeal.) When this was brought to the attention of the President of the FamilyDivision, her office replied that she"considered the matter closed."
Her Honour Judge Anwyl QC said "children need to be with theirmother the evening before school because only mother can make their sandwiches and irontheir school uniform". This was said after hearing that daughter had been going toschool from father's house 50% of the time over a five year period! Jan 2004
Mrs Justice Bracewell (v v V 2004): goes out of her way inparagraph 2 to say 'This is neither a unique nor unusual case'. She then goes on, inpara 4 to say 'There is a perception ... that the courts rubber-stamp cases awarding careof children to mothers almost automatically and marginalise fathers from the lives oftheir children. There is also a perception that courts allow parents with care toflout court orders for contact and permit the parent with residence to exclude the parentfrom the of the children so that the other parent is worn down by years of futilelitigation which achieves nothing and only ends when that parent gives up the struggle, orthe children are old enough to make their own decisions, assuming they have not beenbrainwashed in the meantime.' There was no attempt to refute this 'perception'.
Bracewell didn't want to consider Parental Alienation as a 'Syndrome' but she was preparedto find as fact that 'brain-washing', 'coaching' and, hence, 'emotional abuse' had takenplace. And she was prepared to reverse the residence order, and thechildren's living arrangements in the face of the children's stated wish. Itshould be noted, however, that the CAFCASS officer had cleared the way for her to do so,even if she had not actually specifically recommended the switch.
Justice Bracewell also makes much more specific requests for new powers than other judgeshave made. Mrs Bracewell appreciates the impact of the 'perception' on all the casesthat don't come to Court or which falter or fester in the lower courts. She hastotally undermined 'research' published by her Department that tries to spin the idea thatmost excluded parents get the parenting time or 'contact' that they are seeking.
Deputy District Judge Butler: This case cries out for aConciliation Hearing. If the father voluntarily enters into a standing order, I will givehim plus points for doing so. The father might decide not to pursue his applicationconcerning residence as it is likely to prejudice the Judge when he considerscontact. Aug 2003
Ex agreed nothing at Conciliation Hearing - she was under no incentive. Father, havingentered into Standing order, received no credit and promptly cancelled the SO. Subsequently (May 2004) Father did not get residency but his application for it did notprejudice his case when the judge considered contact.
Mr Justice Calman: ordered that a father, who lived within 300 yards ofhis son's primary residence, should never answer the door when his son rang.
Mr Justice Catlin: : a) when a mother refused to obey an order for sharedresidence, he ordered the cessation of all contact between a father and his two sons inresponse to unsubstantiated charges of abuse; b) at a subsequent hearing 12 months later,when all charges of abuse had been dismissed by the investigating officer, he ordered 1hour of contact between father and son per month.
Mr Justice Cazalet: in hearings spaced over 2 years 1) ordered end ofFriday overnights on grounds that the child had to rest after school, and 2) ordered endof Saturday overnights on grounds that she had to rest all day Sunday before school onMonday.
Judge Goldstein, after a father filed a complaint against him, orderedall contact between that father and his children stopped for three years. Overturned onappeal by Butler-Sloss LJ, who described the judge's behaviour as "outrageous."
Mrs Justice Green: "It's enough if the father sees the childrentwice per week."
Dame Justice Hale (in an appeal where the father had been awarded justone hour per month) "This appeal is unmeritorious"
Lady Justice Hale "Father should be satisfied with 1 day of contactper year.father should appreciate that any happy contact, no matter how brief, no matterhow infrequent, is of benefit to the children.the way to increase contact is to reducepressure on the mother, contact improves when mother is not under pressure, bringing thematter to court puts mother under pressure.' 13 Feb 2004 CA
Judge Hayes recently ended contact between a father and his children to'take some heat out of the situation.'
In another recent judgement the Judge observed that whilst the child enjoyed seeing thefather, this also upset the mother. This in turn led to the child feeling guilty forhaving good times with his father. The outcome was that the father was prevented fromseeing his child entirely as it was judged not to be in the child's best interest
Mr Justice Hedley said I will not make an order (for contact) that themother is not going to comply with. He said what good will come of fining the mother, orsending her to prison. He went on to say that his order was unenforceable.
There was a penal notice on the order, that he had put on, but he was not prepared to doanything.
District Judge Hindley: dismissed a father's application to phone his 7yr old daughter on Christmas morning calling it "too disruptive - she would beopening her Christmas presents."
Mr Justice Holman "I don't care whose bundle I read"
Mister Justice Johnson: ordered a father declared a vexatious litigantfor seeking more than one overnight per fortnight with his 5-year old son. Upheld onappeal by Thorpe LJ.
District Judge Kenworthy-Browne: known by the staff at First Avenue Housefor repeatedly bringing his dog to court, he rebuked a litigant-in-person for not wearinga tie.
A child of 3 "will have developed no Christmas associations with the father, and evenif he has spent Christmases at the father's home, he will not remember them. As such, hewill not expect increased contact with his father over the holidays."
Judge Lamdin dismissed a father's request (after three years oflitigation) for any overnight contact with his six year old on the grounds that "thechild is growing up knowing his father, and that what we are talking about, i.e. overnightstaying contact, is something quite different."
District Judge Lipman: ordered that a father be allowed only 2 weeks ofholiday (out of a possible 13) per year: "You have the midweek contact (3 hrs perweek) instead of this."
Judge Lloyd ordered that an ordinary father be permitted to write hischild once per fortnight on the condition that the letter's contents be reviewed by anofficer of the court.
Judge Milligan, to a parent who had been unsuccessfully trying to see hischild for 2 years: "This is a father who needs, in my judgment, to think long andhard about his whole approach to this question of contact and to ask himself sincerelywhether in fact he seeks to promote it for his own interests dressed up as the child'sinterests."
Judge Munby, ordered the end of all direct contact between a father andhis three children while noting that the mother "wished the children could havecontact with the father. She said there was no need for all this litigation. The childrenshould see the father."
Mr Justice Munby sentenced a father to four months in prison for giving his childrenChristmas presents (a bike, a camera and a walkman) during a scheduled contact meeting.Upheld on appeal by Thorpe LJ and Butler-Sloss LJ.
Deputy District Judge ("Sloppy") O'Leary was asked for anincrease in contact [case booked for half a day]. All the evidence supported it. Without reading the statements produced for the hearing, she asked mother "would youagree removal of the condition if father undertook to use child's first name instead ofher second name?". Father had made it crystal clear he wouldn't; hehasn't for five years so why does she arrogantly think she can fix this in thirtyminutes? Father said "I have promised my daughter I will use her second nameand I cannot break that promise". O'Leary said "Of course youcan". Hearing transferred to RCJ. Dealt with in thirtyminutes. CAFCASS having said they were too busy to produce a report by 20 May, sheordered them to do so by 1 April; it didn't occur to her she has no sanction to makethem do this. (Feb 2004)
Deputy District Judge Pauffley, in raising a father's contact to 18 hoursper month after 1? years of litigation: "What will never be helpful is for the fatherto see his contact in terms of mathematical division. Apparently he is running at adisadvantage of 999 to 1 . . . The court does not look at it in those terms."
Judge Plaskow rejected a father's request for overnight contact with his4-year-old, and ordered court costs against him, on the grounds that the child mightrequire a special diet. (this is in breach of D v D)
Judge Rutherford (to a father who is driving a 750 mile round trip to seehis daughter) "Do you know how inflammatory a residence order is? I have totell you that my starting point for the purposes of determining the appropriate levels ofcontact is what the mother in her sole discretion deems to be the appropriate level!"(December 2004)
District Judge Segal: cancelled after 30 minutes a full hearing at whichthe father sought contact during the summer holidays and rescheduled it for after thesummer. Upheld on appeal. Same ruling in a different case from DeputyDistrict Judge Airey (Nov 2001)
Judge Segal also decided to let an FDR be heard instead, that afternoon,by DDJ O'Leary when O'Leary was hearing an interim application for increase in contact;she, that afternoon, decided she didn't have time for it. (Feb 2004)
Judge Segal postponed a full hearing in order to obtain a Court WelfareOfficer report on two parents who had brought no charges of misconduct against one anotherby stating: "Well, I think both parents have fallen over backwards to avoid causingthe child any sort of harm, but a child always suffers when a marriage breaks down . . .You see, it is possible to kill with kindness by doing too much."
Judge Simmons in a case where alienation was written plainlywritten all across it ... in judgement... "I have looked at these Parental AlienationSyndrome allegations put forward by father. and can find no evidence of it at all...whatever it (PAS) may be?..." !
Mr Justice Sumner: "It is simply not on" for any parent toreturn a 3 year old child home as late as 6 pm on a Sunday.
In another case, he ordered costs against a father who sought any summer holidays with hischild.
Mr Justice Sumner: reproved a father who had made one application to thecourt over two years of litigation, and sought more than twenty-six nights of contact withhis child per year:"You feel better because you can put pressure, you can bringeverybody to court."
District Judge Thomas, in reply to a father who had been cut off from allcontact with his three children for six months: "And I see that you would like me togrant an Order that the mother file a statement to show good reason why there should notbe normal contact. Well, I'm not going to do it!"
Lord Justice Thorpe "we need guidance from government on this..."
"This case (Peter Maynard) is illustrative of the dilemma that the courts face and isas extreme as any I have encountered."
The judge said the lack of court sanctions in cases where mothers refuse contact was"a major problem throughout the family justice system". At present, the onlysanctions available are fining a mother or sending her to jail for contempt of court - astep judges are loath to take because it would deprive the child of its carer.
in rejecting the appeal of a father who wanted to cross- examine a Court Welfare Officer(whose evidence prevented him from seeing his children), affirmed that "there is noright of cross examination of Court Welfare Officers."
Mr Justice Turner in reply to a parent who sought to question a CourtWelfare Officer's report:"That confirms my suspicions. This is what members of thepublic do when they disagree with the recommendations. I believe that its totally wrongthat members of the public can challenge Judges and Court Welfare Officers. Officersshould not be subjected to it. There is a procedure outside the Court about making acomplaint against the Judge. Members of the public should not have the right to makecomplaints."
Lord Justice Ward's pleas for sanity came when he refused the fatherpermission to appeal against a court judgment allowing the mother to move to Australiawith her "loyal friend" with whom she sleeps 5 -6 nights pw ("notlesbians" said Ward); neither woman has work in Australia. Mother condemned by NSPCC,Bernardo's, Childline, Children's Society for holding children fully-clothed under coldshower as punishment (Ward ruled this is "not abuse"). The children told thecourt they wanted to live with father (Ward said this was emotional abuse by fatherbecause he was seriously undermining the mother's influence by "providing analternative home"). All experts agreed that direct contact should continue at no morethan 2-weekly intervals; The Judge, in the court of appeal in London said the mother borean awesome responsibility to make sure the 2 girls age 5 & 8 maintained proper contactwith their father
Judge Wilkinson (Liverpool) about a father whose daughter has been livingwith him for five years "The mother is the primary carer".
Mr Justice Wilson acting against what he called "the deep wishes andfeelings of three intelligent, articulate children," ordered the end of all directcontact with their father. Upheld on appeal by Butler-Sloss, LJ.
Wilson at Hardwicke Chambers recently... "I am just not goingto enforce a contact order. So I simply won't make an order I know I am not going toenforce in the first place..."
District Judge X (case pending): ordered the cessation of all contactbetween parent and child, with no review, "in order to try to move forward andrestore the relationship."
District Judge X (case pending): ordered that a father who had not beenallowed to see his children for 4 months should have his case deferred for another 4months pending investigation of an unsubstantiated 1972 domestic disagreement from aprevious marriage.
District Judge X (case pending): after repeat applications about serialbreaches of a contact order since early 2001, ordered that the issue be reviewed in late2002.
Judge X (name withheld by litigant) told a father who sought more than 2hours contact with his young child per fortnight that "it may well be that the fatheris being too possessive."
Judge X (case pending) ordered that a father, who had waited seven monthsfor a full hearing without seeing his children, be permitted for six months to write themno more than one card/letter every three weeks, without any direct contact.
Avoid Her Honour Judge Bowman (PRFD).
Judges Coates (Brighton), Million, Bevington (RCJ), Bradley, Berry (PRFD) & Gilbertseem fair.
We have heard favourably of Distict Judge Harrison (Chester).
We used to hear reports that Her Honour Judge Judy Hamilton QC (GenerallyBromley, fills in at Medway) appeared to be good news but it turns out she is just likethe rest of them and won't enforce her own orders against a mother she knows to be deeplyunpleasant - the result being that two more children are effectively deprived of access totheir perfectly decent father. [Jan 2004].
The current position of the Lord Chancellor's Department and Family Law Minister RtHon Rosie Winterton "The Government does not believe that a legalpresumption to contact would be helpful"
We have heard favourably about Mrs Glencross (Medway CAFCASS) and DavidIrwin (Kingston CAFCASS)
To add a Judge'sremark, click here
Home page