Ivor Catt 5june03
Who is to blame?
A few days before the date for the first hearing in the divorce action, the divorcing father will deliver to the judge a bundle of papers including documents taken from the “Retreat Strategy” website 3002. It will be made clear to the judge that this divorce is a “Retreat Strategy” divorce.
The judge will say that the father has behaved very badly by placing such stress on his children, described in 3002 paragraph 2. He will say that obviously the father is under great stress because of the bad advice he has received from those promoting the “Retreat Strategy”, and this has caused him to damage his children by subjecting them to so much pressure.
The judge will say that he has the responsibility of trying to pick up the pieces after such an inauspicious start. He has to put the interests of the children first, and they would be further damaged if they lost all contact with their father and all financial and other support from their father. Her deeply regrets that in the interests of the children, he will have to make a court order as requested by the father.
On of the precedents the judge may like to use when defending his behaviour before Sloss is the case when a stepfather said that if the real father were given any access, the stepfather would abandon mother and children. The judge capitulated and completely cut the father off from his children. As I remember, the stepfather did not attend the court.
As to the judge’s future career, Sloss will huff and puff a bit, but in the end she will accept that the judge had no other option if he were to put the interests of the children first.
Since “Retreat” divorces will complete very quickly, a judge who is confronted with many “Retreat” divorces will be able to reduce the backlog of cases clogging up the court. This will boost his reputation.
Ivor Catt 17.29