May 30, 2012

29 May 2012: “Wishes and Feelings” – BIOC, or just another massive fraud?

Filed under: Secret family courts — Granarchist @ 2:46 am

29 May 2012: “Wishes and Feelings” – BIOC, or just another massive fraud?

Category: News 
Posted by: Stu G
Wishes and Feelings – Another fraudulent tactic in dragging out Court Cases?

You may remember article
at the end of March about the ‘wishes and feelings’ doctrine now pervasive in the UK’s social policy concerning children. In that article I expressed that the wishes and feelings of children could be a useful toolkit – were it not abused. But, it seems, however good the intent of an initiative designed to benefit children, it has to get passed our social policy makers. There, with a little twist and insinuation of a few Marxist/feminist words here and there, the intent is reversed when turned into guidance. Effectively, sweeping changes and instructions from the UNCRC, streamlined via the Coalition to the courts to balance things and speed things up, in the genuine and objective Best interests ochildren, are subtly undermined elsewhere.

In one case we are monitoring, the father had every the ‘every other weekend’ token contact after twenty times in court. There exists no credible evidence that this standard imposition so beloved by judges, helps children maintain strong relationships and plenty to suggest the opposite. 

One expert, Dr. Linda Nielson (2010) states, after having read hundreds of research papers, that: 

“the research is abundantly clear on this: only allowing fathers and children to live together 15 or 20 percent of the time is not in most children’s best interests. This view is widely held by experts who do research, mediation or therapy with divorced parents as evidenced by the research presented in abundance throughout this paper. Our society and our legal system can – and must – do better than this.” A Government Green Paper from 2004 states that less than 30% contact as a minimum is “not much use.”

The father was issued an S.91 (14) order for three years after trying, in ten more hearings, to gain more time with his children after they expressed to social workers that they wanted more time with him. Local Authority social workers then said the children had been ‘coerced’ by the father. Judges (28 judges in total have sat on this case) have refused to speak to the kids. The kids said a previous NYAS Guardian ad Litem had cheated them when asking them about their preferences over parental split. “Would you like to see more of your mummy?” Just as the S.91 Order was about to lapse, the mother withheld contact for weeks. Without regular contact to the father to keep the relationship strong and knowing their words count for nothing, one child finally gave in and apparently expressed a view to see more of her mummy. Contact was enforced but, bizarrely, immediately cut from every other weekend to 24 hours visiting contact per month – no overnights. Holiday contact is withdrawn. Mum’s barrister quietly and ‘helpfully’ informed the father outside of court the judge intended to ‘slowly rebuild contact’. Backroom deals? What all experts state to be the only way out of these kinds of problems – more contact, very soon – is exactly what is not happening. But, as the Office for Judicial Complaints says, “Judges have no obligation to read or take notice of research.” Presumably, legal textbooks are a much better read when ex-boarding school boys and girls need guidance in fabricating proclamations about their esoteric versions of meaningful parental relationships. 

Lawyers are not slow to catch onto new ways of making money either – the lawyer representing the mother in this case, probably being paid for with child benefit and tax credits, wanted to cut contact entirely, wait a few more weeks, then “decide the case according to wishes and feelings.” There have already been four new hearings and more planned over the coming months as the relationship between the father and children is being systematically choked off. 

Please read on……

In another case the parents had eventually agreed consent orders with shared residence and sharing significant contact. But, it seems, a look at the child benefit and tax credits and CSA calculator soon changed mum’s mind. Contact was stopped and again the children reported they wanted to see their father. CAFCASS said the children ‘were being coerced’ by the father. His contact was stopped entirely until the matter could get back to court, which luckily for him was ‘only’ weeks later. Contact was reinstated at every other Saturday/Sunday. Four hearings already, looks like four more to come, with CAFCASS reporting yet again in the middle. An arrangement of the type that the Coalition says it wants to see as standard is casually and collaboratively destroyed for no proper reason by the biased professionals who have nothing to gain from parental cooperation and all the power and facility to deliberately further buckle rather than fix low grade problems. Is this ‘in the child’s best interests,’ or simply 727 family ticket holding judges filling up Judicial/social worker diaries (prior to publicly lamenting how overloaded and stressed they all are) whilst endlessly sponging up State assets, and transferring to themselves the private assets earned by decent, productive people trapped in the Family Division’s nonsense?

An old case concerns a father of three. Contact was stopped for months before the final hearing. One child said she wanted to see her father, one declined to comment (probably disgusted at being asked), the other said she did not want to see him. That was years ago. None of the children have seen their father since. As ever, not a word about maternal coercion. Well done, District Judge Goddard, for chalking up a few more ruined lives on the fuselage. 

In a case in Belfast, several years ago, a young child was asked in court, whilst still seeing both of her parents, who she wanted to live with and see. The child said “live with Daddy but still see mummy lots.” 50/50 was ordered. The arrangement holds strong today. 

Such arrangements are common in Scandinavia – and after taking a look it’s not hard to see why. There are not the financial State incentives for sole motherhood that are on offer here. It is not a culturally supported lifestyle choice. Employers are accustomed to providing week on- week off flexitime. In some Scandinavian judicatures, a mother is more likely to apply to court to enforce contact between children and disinterested fathers than the perverse and reverse way things are done here.

Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: