Ill Eagle
Please wait for download
|
Continued from www.ivorcatt.com/02f.htm |
|
Ill Eagle 20 September 2002 Ill20 p1 Editorial A question of good faith One of my
associates tells me that Hewson, the head of
CAFCASS, which was set up to reform the family court system, “speaks with a
forked tongue”. As for me, he strikes me as a dear old boy. For me, the only
trouble is that, coming into the hot seat from an irrelevant background in
other fields, he will not be able to learn enough fast enough to contribute
to viable reform. Unfortunately, “Speaking with
forked tongue” is confirmed for me when firstly we hear him tell us; “You are
pushing at an open door,” but then we find the following. Thorpe misbehaved,
and made a judgement that an “expert” court official could not be
cross-examined in court on behalf of the father. After years of effort by us,
new law overruled Thorpe. Now we find that this was a Pyrrhic victory. The legislation has been sabotaged by a
Statutory Instrument dated mid-2001. This says that the court may limit the
range of cross-examination of an expert witness. This is Hewson
territory. Either he betrayed our children, or he is incompetent. Either way,
he is not in a position to contribute to reform. I originated the
idea that we would encourage better behaviour in the family court system
through research into “outcomes”. Outcomes meant the statistics on, for
instance, what proportion of children who were the victims of sole custody
ended up five years later teenage pregnant, dead through suicide, drug-taking
etc. compared with children who were given continued access to their fathers.
These statistics could be established rapidly, in five years from now. Radfems, lawyers, social workers did everything they could to
confuse the term, trying to make it mean whether a child was upset by the way
a court official interviewed it, and such short-term “outcomes”. After years
of hard slog, even enemies of the family now accept that outcomes should be
investigated. However, the Lord Chancellor’s Department has sabotaged it by
putting the vixens in charge of the Outcomes committee. Out of ten, there is
only one man. We, who established the principle, are not allowed to have a
representative on the committee. Even though radfems
have as part of their dogma that statistics should be manipulated for
political ends – since statistics are part of linear, patriarchal oppression,
the LCD has packed the 10-woman committee with four women from Leeds University,
who with Julie Bindle instigated the evil, deeply sexist, “Zero Tolerance”
campaign. Mr Lee, our ManKind member in Birmingham, writing to his MP Estelle
Morris, caused the Lord Chancellor, to write to her about his consultation
with ManKind. As we, now a charity, come more and
more into the mainstream, we have to consider how our contributions are
treated. I am convinced that the suicide rate among young men will continue
to increase, and ManKind is only willing to share
some of the blame for future increases if there is an honest attempt by those
who will be to blame to accept our contribution to the reform process in good
faith. Govt officials need to remember that we are in unequal combat with
anti-social radfems who receive massive funding, in
the millions, from their anti-social radfem sisters
in the Home Office, in the Rowntree Foundation and
elsewhere. They use some of this money to fabricate false statistics. In
contrast, first we were obstructed in our successful attempt to achieve
charitable status for years. Second, for many years now, we have received no
funding whatsoever to balance the subsidy for anti-father radfem
propaganda. Ill20 p2 The above two
examples of misconduct by govt officials mean that positive gestures are now
required from govt officials to reassure us that we will truly be welcomed to
help in the reform process. Otherwise, the Charity ManKind
needs to distance itself from anti-social, incompetent govt depts and initiatives. We made a major
decision when we allowed ourselves to remain involved in secret courts, which
obviously are fraught with problems. Here we see that if they are to be in
any way viable, their procedures must be much more rigorous than those of
open courts where misconduct by a judge can be seen by the public. [This last
is a paraphrase of Denning. ".... in the darkness of secrecy all sorts of things can go
wrong. .... in public you can see that the judge
does behave himself .... it keeps everyone in
order." - Lord Denning on radio in 1960.] - Ivor Catt, Editor, Ill Eagle. 12aug02 To Anthon Hewson,
CAFCASS; This is a draft of
the next issue. Please comment in order to reassure us as to whether we are
just being exploited, or taken seriously. We are only willing to take some of
the responsibility for the coming crisis if you and other govt officials give
us a chance to influence events. IC Dear Ivor, Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to respond to your editorial in the latest edition of Ill Eagle. Let me be clear on a couple of things. Firstly, when I said "you are pushing on an open door" I meant just that. At CAFCASS we want to listen to all stakeholders who have views on our remit and service. Indeed I know a number of your members attended the consultation workshops we organised recently to assist in the development of our next corporate plan and we welcomed their contribution. You've set out
your concerns about a number of issues in relation to decisions taken by the
judiciary or the Government in recent years. Just to be clear although I'm
sure you know, CAFCASS is a Non Departmental Government Body. We don't
have legislative or legal powers. We exist to support children and their
families in family courts and other settings, ensuring their voices are
heard, so decisions can be reached that are in the best interests of the
children. This is our main focus and will continue to be so. I hope that
we will continue to have a constructive dialogue with
MANKIND and other stakeholders interested in our work.
- Anthony Hewson CAFCASS Chairman 16aug02 [Note again
the threat, that if govt agencies pretend to listen to us, we will be partly
to blame for the accelerating suicide rate. Note also the game of claiming to
have no power. In the end, we will probably find that nobody has the power to
clean up, or shut down, the family courts. – Ed] [From p1] Item removed [From p2] [From Ill Eagle
4, sep99, p1, at www.ivorcatt.com/99.htm] Expedient in the interests of corrupt and
incompetent judges and lawyers In his biography of Lord Denning, p117, Edmund Heward
wrote unmistakably about secret courts. "Denning was a good friend of the Press, believing that the
reporter was the watchdog of justice. .... Speaking in Adelaide in 1967 he
criticised the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill, which prohibited full
reporting of criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Courts. He said: 'Every
court should be open to every subject of the Queen. I think it is one of the
essentials of justice being done in the community. Every judge, in a sense,
is on trial to see that he does his job properly.' Again he once said:
'Reporters are there, representing the public, to see that magistrates and
judges behave themselves. Children's courts should also be open. .... proceedings should never be conducted behind closed
doors.' This does not happen in the High Court, even today. Proceedings about
the custody, care and control, access and maintenance of children are held in
private. Ninety percent of High Court work is done privately, in chambers, by
Masters and Registrars." I had come across the mantra "expedient in the interests of the
child" for some years. It was used to justify secrecy at many levels,
resulting in widespread, multiple damage to our
children. However, our corrupt, incompetent courts ran into difficulty when
no children were present or involved. The crisis first arose when Michael Pelling tried to get the hearing held in public when
lawyers' fees were to be determined ("Taxation" in brogue). He lost
in the court of appeal, in a scurrilous judgement which defied reason and
justice. So, more than five years ago, we already had the absurd situation
when it was allegedly in the interests of the child that nobody should hear
about how judge and barrister talked through how much taxpayers' Legal Aid
money the one should award to the other. Further attacks on the proper, open
conduct of a court appeared in "Consultation paper on Part IV of the
Family Law Act 1996 dated mar97. On p12 clause 43 it substitutes
"expedient in the interests of justice" for "expedient in the
interests of the child". Thus, in spite of the fact that they are all
Denning men, our judges found it necessary to sidle deeper under the mantle
of secrecy. Now, The Times of
wed18aug99 Law Report on Regina v Bow
County Court, ex parte Pelling, reports
Lord Woolf of all people increasing the depths of secrecy even further and
betraying his June95 Interim Report "Access to Justice" (available
on Warwick University's website). Whereas in june95 he was even more rabid
than I am about the failure of our court system, chiefly complaining about
cost, his irresponsible 18aug99 Judgement intentionally increases costs and
also increases secrecy. …. Richard Gregory, editor of FNF's Mackenzie, published a good article on
the case in The Times, 17aug99,
p21. Perjury
…. Police chiefs want to
see more people put on trial for perjury …. “At present, the risk of
prosecution for perjury arising out of evidence given in criminal proceedings
is negligible. Witnesses or defendants can mislead the court with a shameless
pack of lies with little fear of consequence.” – Sir David Phillips,
president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sunday Times, 23june02, p2 The Lord Chief Justice
[Woolf] …. an attempt to make the legal process more
understandable to the public. John Lister, of the Plain
English Campaign, said: “It is good that Lord Woolf is pressing on with his
efforts to rid the courts of Latin and legalese so that the language used is
the type that is understood by the people who use the courts.” – Times, 12aug02, p4 So slippery Woolf suckered
Lister. Woolf speaks with forked tongue. By loudly saying he wants reform, he
makes it easier to block reform. For instance, I saw him betray his forceful
(damages won are always gobbled up in costs) june95 Interim Report Access to Justice twice, firstly in his
woolly july96 Final Report, and again in front of Pelling
in Judicial Review, when he made sure litigation costs would not be reduced
after all. – Ed. Cut the cost of your calls Save money for ManKind at the same time. Call Steve (ManKind
NW Regional Organiser) at 0151 512 7303 (am) and 0870 794 7303 (pm) any day. Working with violent women - Erin Pizzey, New
Hampshire, 1aug02 …. Those of us working in the field of
domestic violence are confronted daily by the difficult task of working with
women in problematical families. In my work with family violence, I have come
to recognize that there are women involved in emotionally and/or physically
violent relationships who express and enact
disturbance beyond the expected (and acceptable) scope of distress. Such
individuals, spurred on by deep feelings of vengefulness, vindictiveness, and
animosity, behave in a manner that is singularly destructive; destructive to
themselves as well as to some or all of the other family members, making an
already bad family situation worse. ….
[Erin spoke at the ManKind 2,000 conference] Ill20 p3 Ill Eagle 20 Sep2002 Editorial Suckered
My old website, . . . . . http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/te26quag.htm http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ycuqcens.htm exhaustively discusses
the way in which, over a period of twenty years, a rump of leaders in The
Society of Friends (Quakers) comprehensively blocked publication of concerns
about the growing Child Protection Industry. They also blocked delivery to
the relevant Quaker National Committees of relevant information about the
plight of children of divorce. Further, the Society, along with other
churches, was captured by the Rainbow Alliance. ManKind
member Anthony Pace active@justiceinfamilylaw.co.uk is researching this. Now we see Quakers,
along with other subverted churches, joining in the attack on the family and
helping in its nationalisation. They are proud to do this as volunteers. George Fox will be
turning in his grave. So would Jesus, if he had one. – Ed “A Welcoming
Meeting House for Child Contact. Between
10.00am and 1.00pm every Saturday, Edgware’s Quaker Meeting House becomes a
Child Access and Contact Centre. …. Apart from one Middle Eastern Male, we
are all white and mainly female. It would be advantageous to have helpers
from other ethnic backgrounds, as the families attending come from many
races. …. We exist on a very small budget …. The CWOs with whom we have
contact are very supportive and some of the solicitors making referrals
couldn’t be more helpful. They try to negotiate a settlement rather than win
battles. Other solicitors are more of a hindrance.” …. Moira Eagle,
Coordinator, from “Network Live”, available (4 issues) for £7 from The
Administrator, NACCC, Minerva House, Spaniel Row, Nottingham NG1 6EP. [The intrepid Moira
Eagle will probably think that the car deaths (below) result from the lack of
enough CCCs. Please would ManKind members find out
as much as they can about CCCs, a rapidly growing sector, and deliver the
information to me. – Ed] 15aug02 To Moira Eagle. I edit the journal “Ill
Eagle”. This is from the draft of the next issue. I need a reply from you to
add to it. This is urgent, since camera ready copy leaves me in the post to
the printers on 19aug02. Ivor Catt ManKind and Ill Eagle can be reached at:- 1). Suite 367, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1X
8HL. www.mankind.org.uk
2) www.ivorcatt.com/ 3) Email Head.Office@mankind.co.uk The Editor, Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. ( 01727 - 864257 Email ivor@ivorcatt.com Murder
and suicide suspected in car deaths News.telegraph.co.uk
14july02 The deaths of a father and his four children
found in a blazing car were tonight being treated by police as a possible
murder and suicide. Scotland Yard said the bodies were
discovered in a silver Nissan Primera
on an industrial estate in South Crescent, West Ham, east London. Neighbours of the man - who was
estranged from his wife - and his children - two girls aged 12 and nine and
two boys aged seven and six - said they were devastated by the tragedy. Grace Omia,
31, said she was a friend of the dead man, who was named Claude and had come
to Britain from the Congo in Africa. Laying flowers at the scene, she wept:
"He loved his family so much I don't know what was the
motive. We are all in shock. I saw him last month and he seemed OK.
There were no problems that I knew of with his wife. "He
was a quiet, calm, happy person, I don't understand how a lovely man can do
something like this." …. www.ivorcatt.com/2104.htm [The attack on fathers by our secret family courts is bad enough when they attack what they understand. When they attack a family from a culture they have no knowledge of, their crass actions are even more likely to result in disaster. A good example would be when a family from a society where women are ill educated comes to England. These women will have much less grasp of the implications for their family if they launch an attack on it aided by our secret courts and its radfem judges. – Ed] Bob Geldof
- CD
‘News
at Ten’ interview with Bob Geldof over fathers’ roights hit home at every level. This is Geldof at his best, his definitive exposition, in which
he goes to the heart of the fa,mily courts, and
expresses outrage at the scale of the damage they continue to cause, and
tears it to pieces. ManKind has now produced a CD of this
remarkable benchmark in men’s rights. The CD also contains further items of
great interest to ManKiknd members. Trevor
McDonald interviews Bob Geldof. This is Geldof’s definitive exposition, in which he goes to the
heart of the flaws in the family courts, and expresses outrage at the scale
of the damage they continue to cause. The CD also contains further items of
great interest to ManKind members. [I found it easy
to play on my PC. It is self-starting. – Ed] For
your copy of the Geldof CD, send a cheque for £5, made out to ManKind,
as your contribution to production costs, to your editor, Ivor
Catt, at 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR,
England. Express,
Letters, 18june02; I was very touched
to read pop star Bob Geldof describing the pain of
fathers forbidden to see their children on Father's Day due to divorce
settlements. There would be a national outrage if it
was the other way round - no one would prevent a mother seeing her child on
Mother's Day. But it is typical of the law when it
comes to marriages and divorce. Blanket decisions are taken like
automatically giving mothers custody and fathers having to pay a percentage
of their wages in maintenance. I firmly believe every father should support
his children, but the courts do not seem to take each case on its own merits. Continuity is vital in a child's life and
they shouldn't be shoved from pillar to post. It is vital that children are
able to have a relationship with both parents and it has to be said that it
is mainly fathers who are left out. - Jenny Munro, Glasgow Geldof calls for custody laws to be rewritten -
William Tinning, Glasgow Herald,
18june02 Bob Geldof
last night called for Britain's custody laws to be ''scrapped and
rewritten" after claiming they are biased towards women and against the
best interests of the child. A father-of-four, Geldof,
50, believes the laws, at present, discriminate against men and are out of
touch with the changing role of men and women in today's society. The rock star and Live Aid founder's
sadness and bitter experiences during his custody battle with the late Paula
Yates were revealed in an interview for the Tonight With Trevor McDonald
programme, broadcast last night on ITV1. In the interview Geldof
said: "I wanted to have my children 50% of the time. In the end it came down to either myself or Paula. I waited a long time and I got tired of
hearing how much Paula loved the children - which she did endlessly, as did
I. I was handed a piece of paper saying 'you may see your children on this
day and every second weekend'. Why? What had I done? "I saw them every day, I took them
to school, I bathed them, fed them, cooked for them ... Why now was the state
and all its instruments of justice ... aimed at me?" Geldof
said that during the custody battle he was advised by a "well-meaning
person in court" not to tell the court that he loved his children. He
says that when he asked why, the person said "the court will think it
unhealthily extreme if a man articulates his love for his children". Geldof
said fathers who had limited access to their children felt suicidal on
Christmas Day and Father's Day and were prevented from having a normal
relationship with their children. He added: "The law in effect is not so
much biased towards the mother but very discriminatory against the father. Ill20 p4 "Up until now, women haven't gone out
to work, men have gone out to work and they've provided and the women have
nurtured. "That social consensus has changed hugely
since the time this law was drafted. The law is inflexible and worse in this
case ... it's fundamentally wrong. It should be scrapped and be
rewritten." Geldof emphasised that his comments were not
"anti-women". "It's not just a male agenda. I get women who
take care of the children who can't understand ... how it (the law) can be so
unjust towards fathers." Jim Parton, chairman of Families Need
Fathers, who also appeared on the programme, said he believed it was not the
law relating to custody battles which was unfair but the people who enacted
the law. "People working in the family law
system, including judges and social workers, need to understand that children
need their fathers. Fathers are an optional extra as far as many family
policy people think." FNF AGM
Dear Judge Wall, I attended the FNF AGM last Sunday
[7july02] and would like to make some comments on your talk. Firstly though I must make it clear that I
am writing from as a purely private individual who happens to be a member of
FNF. I neither hold an official post
nor am I an official spokesman for FNF. I would like to thank you
for giving up your Sunday afternoon and coming along to give us the talk on
what is a very emotive and controversial subject. You made the point that we should be looking to Parliament to change the law, however, if we get a politician to speak at our next AGM, I can almost guarantee that (s)he will say that it is the fault of the courts and they cannot interfere with the courts. You both say “it’s them not us”, which, smacks of irresponsibility. It does, however, at least imply that both of you know that there is a problem, which is good news as this is the first step to solving it. I have no wish to tell you
the law, but surely the Children’s Act was made purposely vague to enable
judges enough leeway so that they could fit the law to each individual
case. To demonstrate the range of
options open to judges we just need to look at opposing extremes. At one extreme, judges are allowed to give
sole custody to the father and to ban the mother from seeing her
children. At the other extreme they
can give sole custody to the mother and ban the father from seeing his
children. Judges can give any
combination in-between these two extremes, why do you say that the law needs
changing if you can make any order you wish, and why do you operate at only
one extreme of the spectrum? One
thing that you repeatedly said is that it is the written into the Children’s
Act that judges should base their decisions, primarily, on “the best interest
of the children”. Forgive me for
saying that your repeating of this seems to imply that you do not believe
that the fathers in the room have the best interest of their children at
heart. I find a particular arrogance
of judges who think that they know better than parents do, what is best for
children. May I point out that it is
normally the case that judges do not even know the names of the children
involved, they do not have to live for the rest of their lives with the
consequences and they hold no responsibility for the outcome of their decisions. This is
power without responsibility, which is absolute power. Despite this judges seem to have the
arrogance to believe that that they know what is best for our children. Parents are almost the only people
throughout your life that can be guaranteed to put you first above all other
considerations. On this point I would
like to make some other comments: Firstly, you emphasise
Domestic Violence (DV), although you do not go as far as saying the fathers
should be barred from their children because of it. I would like to point out that throughout
well over 100 reputable surveys carried out throughout the English speaking
countries runs the theme that women commit just as much DV as men. There are
no reputable surveys that say anything different. It has also been shown by
the NSPCC that mothers commit 60% of child abuse and real fathers 9% with 31%
being carried out by step-fathers live-in boyfriends and the like. Surely as
far as DV is concerned it is “in the best interest of the children” to give
full custody to the father and not put them with the mother where 91% of
child abuse takes place. Why don’t
they? Secondly, by placing girls
with their mothers you expose them to eight time the
risk of sexual abuse from step-fathers, live in boyfriends and the like. Why do judges do this if they are committed
to “in the
best interest of the children”? Thirdly, the main responsibilities a parent has for their children are to feed, clothe, and shelter them, for example it does not matter how much education they get if they starve and it does not matter how much “mothering” they get if they freeze to death. Throughout history, these main responsibilities have always been held by fathers, currently they are held by fathers (although the Government has made great effort to replace fathers with themselves paid for by fathers) and fathers will hold this responsibility for the foreseeable future, for mothers are very unlikely to take on this task. Why is it “in the best interest of the children” to give the children to someone, other than the father who holds these primary responsibilities? Further to this, is the question of who pays the mother’s support. Despite the propaganda, almost no mother supports herself let alone her children. Mothers are, at least partially, supported by the money they receive for their children. Why is it “in the best interest of the children” for courts to order fathers to supply enough money to their children so that the children can support their mother? Surely, this is the reverse of what is supposed to happen: are not parents supposed to support their underage children? Fourthly, the Children’s
Act is gender free, why do judges almost exclusively give the children to the
mother? Only 8% go to the father and
this includes cases where the mother has deserted the family and the
millionaires, who can spend a million pounds on lawyers to get custody. When I said to my solicitor, who was a
“trainee” judge, that I wanted custody he said “you don’t stand a chance
unless you can prove beyond any doubt that she is rolling around the floor
drunk EVERY night or is on HARD drugs” (the EVERY and HARD were his
emphasis). This implies that judges
consider that any abuse less that this is an acceptable price for children to
pay to live with their mother. How is this “in the best
interest of the children”? This was especially highlighted when, a couple of
years later, Bob Geldof got custody of his children
with a reported cost of “almost a million”, subsequently the children’s
mother died from a heroin overdose whilst she had care of the children. What
my solicitor did not tell me was that even if she were a drunk or a hard drug
addict, it would still cost me a million pounds before your courts would
consider giving me custody. Do you
consider this to be “in the best interest of the children”? I find it incredible that
people talk of mediation, which is like mending an iron girder with sellotape. You quite rightly say that you cannot legislate
“mediation”, however, you can facilitate it by
making it a viable option. Sitting two people down and saying now be
reasonable and then saying to one “but if you’re not we will give you
whatever you demand” is hardly likely to achieve anything worthwhile. If however you start from the 50/50 point
you may get some positive result.
Quite simply why should mother bother with mediation when the
anti-family courts give them everything anyway? How do you consider that this is “in the
best interest of the children”? Fathers agree with
Parliament that a principle of the Children’s Act should be “in the best
interest of the children” but Parliament never intended that this should be
the only criterion and to be used to such an extent that the whole of the Act
could be erased and in its place could be this one phrase. Using this phrase judges commit any abuse
of the law, children and fathers that they feel like, including not doing
what is “in the best interest of the children”. Ill20 p5 Finally, I would like
comment on your frequent statement that the decisions are very difficult for
judges to make. I have heard this a
number of times from various sources and would not disagree, however, it is
stated so many times that it is beginning to sound like judges are saying
that they are too incompetent to make these judgements. Is this the main
problem? To make a judgement you must have at least two options. It appears to me that in too many cases
judges are taking the easy way out and restricting themselves to just one
option, which of course is: no option, no judgement and no justice. I have heard two “judges” state that
justice is not the aim of the “Family” courts. This incredible admission by judges is
tantamount to admitting that the “Family” Courts are corrupt, for any court
whose aim is not justice, must be corrupt. Yours Sincerely, E W Diggins Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Dear Lady Justice Butler-Sloss: Yesterday [7july02] Mr Justice Wall addressed the Families Need Fathers Annual General Meeting. It was good of him to give up part of his weekend. His central message was: - “Forget the judges; you need to persuade the
Government to change the system!” I am not convinced that it is correct. Government say the law is clear. It leaves judges free to make decisions that they believe serve the best interests of children. Thus, it is a discretion-based system. Global research shows that children of separated do better when they have both parents actively involved in their lives. Mental health professionals the world over say a both parents regime is best. The Government repeatedly say that both separated parents should continue to be involved in parenting their children. Parliament indicated that the Children Act should pave the way for shared residence orders as the common form of order. Dr Hamish Cameron said in his address at the MAKING CONTACT WORK conference that shared residence should be the starting point. The Children Act 1989 was supposed to herald an end to the “winner takes all” approach to parenting after separation. Yet judges regularly make decisions that cause one parent (normally the father) to become an outcast only to be tolerated if the mother will allow it. They do so by exercise of discretion when they could just as easily make decisions that support a both parents regime. Mr Justice Wall also implied this (my
interpretation): “Lots of shared parenting probably
takes place where the parents agree it between themselves, but we are mainly
dealing with conflicted cases where it can’t work.” The corollary here is that the only solution in conflicted cases is for the court to back the parent with day-to-day care at the expense of the other parent (and I would add at the expense of the children). But that means one parent can always veto shared parenting, even when it would patently be better for the children. Moreover, this thinking, with great respect, is 20 years out of date and it is immensely damaging to the children and parents who are affected by it. How do I know that? Because we have long been researching best practice worldwide. As I said yesterday to Mr Justice Wall, I recently attended an international, interdisciplinary conference in USA on family law. There were senior family court judges there from all over the world; but not a single UK judge. Indeed I was the sole UK representative. (Janet Walker usually attends, but she was unwell.) I spoke at length with many of the judges there. They needed no persuasion at all of the correctness of the shared parenting approach. In fact they thought it weird that any judges would be continuing to exclude a fit parent. They told me that the Canadian and US systems used to work that way about 20 years ago! These judges could not have been more helpful and accommodating. A number have written to me since offering help and guidance. I believe the UK judiciary would benefit enormously by opening up to new information and concepts. That we have fallen so far behind in the UK, should be a major cause for concern. Mr Justice Wall said we should engage in debate with the judiciary. I embrace that idea. When and how can we start? These cases are tough for judges, but excluding one parent is not the answer. Excluding one parent should be the last resort, only to be employed when a parent is proven unfit. Mr Justice Wall said quite a bit about domestic violence. Domestic violence is a crime and should be treated as such. It should not be tolerated. But you know as well as I do, that judges exclude parents when there is not even an allegation of domestic violence nor any other form of abuse. The system is not even properly addressing ordinary cases yet! Proven tools exist for making immediate improvements that will benefit children and help your judges make better decisions. We are anxious to enter into dialogue with the judiciary about them as soon as possible because we recognize that it will take time to implement systemic improvements. But please, let’s make a start! We do not pretend to have perfect answers. These cases are not easy. But immediate improvements can be made that will benefit children and families and save money. I agree that we will need “buy-in” from Government, but with the judiciary behind these solutions, I believe change will be irresistible. Certainly resources will be a consideration. But these proven solutions will save money overall, as well as doing a powerful amount of good for children and apart families. I do hope we can start moving forward in a positive spirit of cooperation. It is so important for children, their excluded parents and grandparents and indeed for the judiciary who are, increasingly, losing the respect and confidence of good citizens. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Tony Coe, President, EPC 020 7590 2701 Email:
tonyc@equalparenting.org Hero Red Ken falls to
Zero Subject: Ken Livingstone - 'From Hero to
Zero' ? Dear [Councillor] Jennette
Arnold, Is
it true that Ken Livingstone has been
accused of hitting his girlfriend and pushing another chap down a step ? If only the first part is true it is
surely ironic. If the first part is false, then when
may we expect him to be arrested and cautioned ? You may recall that in 'From Hero to
Zero' we wrote :- 1.
We can even predict what the results will be if the GLA buys into the
present false mantra – domestic violence, far from going down, will go up. 2.
Domestic violence is more likely in settings which featured :- casual
relationships, ie boy friend/ girl friend; and cohabiting couples, lower income
groups; persons living in council/social need housing; persons who were divorced and separated who
subsequently undertook serial affairs;....... 3.
With regards domestic violence we have built
up a considerable expertise in patterns and motivations of the sometimes false
or exaggerated allegations made during custody battles." Please assure us that this is an
instance of 'false or exaggerated allegations'. We would be only too delighted to share
our "considerable expertise" if this would assist Ken at his moment of need. Yours sincerely, Robert Whiston. Chairman, ManKind.
27june02 From: Jennette
Arnold Jennette.Arnold@london.gov.uk
7july02 In your dreams. Ill20 p6 Dear Jennette,
What sort of reply is this from a GLA councillor? For the recipient I'm
afraid it is rather ambiguous. Are we to take it that "in your
dreams" applies to the view that Ken Livingstone did not hit a woman
(pregnant or otherwise) or that the offence did not take place at all? In our original email we asked for an
assurance that this was another instance of a false or exaggerated
allegation. We also offered to share our expertise if this was true and Ken
needed assistance. Perhaps the ambiguous remark "in your dreams"
applied to this? If so, we would appreciate an adult confirmation. Regards, RW 9july02 [J Arnold heads for Livingstone the GLA’s scurrilous, sexist DV
initiative “I in 4”. For your copy of their two anti-man propaganda books
dated mar01, phone 020 7983 4100; www.london.gov.uk
One is subtitled “The Mayor’s recommended minimum standards”. The front cover
says; “Two out of three men [GLA Councillors?] admit
they would use violence on their female partner in conflict situations.” - Ed]
Continued at www.ivorcatt.com/02h.htm [Ill Eagle 1999 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/99.htm ] [Most past Ill Eagle issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/98.htm ] [Ill Eagle 2001 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/01.htm ] [Ill Eagle 2002 issues are at www.ivorcatt.com/02.htm ] Dear Judge Wall, I
attended the FNF AGM last Sunday and would like to make some comments on your
talk. Firstly though I must make it clear that I am writing from as a purely
private individual who happens to I would like to thank you for giving up your Sunday afternoon and coming along to give us the talk on what is a very emotive and controversial subject. You made the point that we should be looking to Parliament to change the law, however, if we get a politician to speak at our next AGM, I can almost guarantee that (s)he will say that it is the fault of the courts and they cannot interfere with the courts. You both say "it's them not us", which, smacks of irresponsibility. It does, however, at least imply that both of you know that there is a problem, which is good news as this is the first step to solving it. I have no wish to tell you the law, but surely the Children's Act was made purposely vague to enable judges enough leeway so that they could fit the law to each individual case. To demonstrate the range of options open to judges we just need to look at opposing extremes. At one extreme, judges are allowed to give sole custody to the father and to ban the mother from seeing her children. At the other extreme they can give sole custody to the mother and ban the father from seeing his children. Judges can give any combination in-between these two extremes, why do you say that the law needs changing if you can make any order you wish, and why do you operate at only one extreme of the spectrum? One thing that you repeatedly said is that it is the written into the Children's Act that judges should base their decisions, primarily, on "the best interest of the children". Forgive me for saying that your repeating of this seems to imply that you do not believe that the fathers in the room have the best interest of their children at heart. I find a particular arrogance of judges who think that they know better than parents do, what is best for children. May I point out that it is normally the case that judges do not even know the names of the children involved, they do not have to live for the rest of their lives with the consequences and they hold no responsibility for the outcome of their decisions. This is power without responsibility, which is absolute power. Despite this judges seem to have the arrogance to believe that that they know what is best for our children. Parents are almost the only people throughout your life that can be guaranteed to put you first above all other considerations. On this point I would like to make some other comments: Firstly, you emphasise Domestic Violence (DV), although you do not go as far as saying the fathers should be barred from their children because of it. I would like to point out that throughout well over 100 reputable surveys carried out throughout the English speaking countries runs the theme that women commit just as much DV as men. There are no reputable surveys that say anything different. It has also been shown by the NSPCC that mothers commit 60% of child abuse and real fathers 9% with 31% being carried out by step-fathers live-in boyfriends and the like. Surely as far as DV is concerned it is "in the best interest of the children" to give full custody to the father and not put them with the mother where 91% of child abuse takes place. Why don't they? Secondly, by placing girls with their mothers you expose them to eight time the risk of sexual abuse from step-fathers, live in boyfriends and the like. Why do judges do this if they are committed to "in the best interest of the children"? Thirdly,
the main responsibilities a parent has for their children are to feed,
clothe, and shelter them, for example it does not matter how much education
they get if they starve and it does not matter how much "mothering"
they get if they freeze to death. Throughout history, these main
responsibilities have always been held by fathers, currently they are held by
fathers (although the Government has made great effort to replace fathers
with themselves paid for by fathers) and fathers will hold this
responsibility for the foreseeable future, for mothers are very unlikely to
take on this task. Why is it "in the best interest of the children"
to give the children to someone, other than the father who holds these
primary responsibilities? Further to this, is the question of who pays the
mother's support. Despite the propaganda, almost no
mother supports herself let alone her children. Mothers are, at least
partially, supported by the money they receive for their children. Why is it
"in the best interest of the children" for courts to order fathers
to supply enough money to their children so that the children can support
their mother? Surely, this is the reverse of what is supposed to happen: are
not parents supposed to support Fourthly, the Children's Act is gender free, why do judges almost exclusively give the children to the mother? Only 8% go to the father and this includes cases where the mother has deserted the family and the millionaires, who can spend a million pounds on lawyers to get custody. When I said to my solicitor, who was a "trainee" judge, that I wanted custody he said "you don't stand a chance unless you can prove beyond any doubt that she is rolling around the floor drunk EVERY night or is on HARD drugs" (the EVERY and HARD were his emphasis). This implies that judges consider that any abuse less that this is an acceptable price for children to pay to live with their mother. How is this "in the best interest of the children"? This was especially highlighted when, a couple of years later, Bob Geldof got custody of his children with a reported cost of "almost a million", subsequently the children's mother died from a heroin overdose whilst she had care of the children. What my solicitor did not tell me was that even if she were a drunk or a hard drug addict, it would still cost me a million pounds before your courts would consider giving me custody. Do you consider this to be "in the best interest of the children"? I find it incredible that people talk of mediation, which is like mending an iron girder with sellotape. You quite rightly say that you cannot legislate "mediation", however, you can facilitate it by making it a viable option. Sitting two people down and saying now be reasonable and then saying to one "but if you're not we will give you whatever you demand" is hardly likely to achieve anything worthwhile. If however you start from the 50/50 point you may get some positive result. Quite simply why should mother bother with mediation when the anti-family courts give them everything anyway? How do you consider that this is "in the best interest of the children"? Fathers agree with Parliament that a principle of the Children's Act should be "in the best interest of the children" but Parliament never intended that this should be the only criterion and to be used to such an extent that the whole of the Act could be erased and in its place could be this one phrase. Using this phrase judges commit any abuse of the law, children and fathers that they feel like, including not doing what is "in the best interest of the children". – Ivor Catt 2002 http://www.ivorcatt.com/02g.htm
|
