Could someone please explain to me the rational behind this senario;
A family live together, father, mother, two children, the husabnd is abusive, he hits the mother in front of the children,he hits the children, social services get involved and tell the mother "father leaves the home and has no contact or we will take your children into care"
Now same senario only before social services get involved mother leaves father because of D.V and father applies to the courts for contact, abuse is proven, s7 report says " contact recommended".
Why?
Can I ask, it is that nobody can answer this question, or that your just choosing not to answer?
Hi
When you say contact is this supervised contact or not out of curiousity.
When there is domestic violence in relationships, which is impacting upon children, social workers (in my area) often encourage the violent partner to leave and tell the mother (which it normally is) that there should be no contact between the children and their father. By this it is often meant that they should not facilitate contact but we will offer supervised contact between the father and his children. Mothers in this position are encouraged to seek legal advice.
The problem in the courts is that it is very rare for fathers to be denied contact. Research has shown that even when there is extreme violence, this is sometimes encouraged. However, if contact is encouraged, it should be in a safe manner for the children i.e. either in a supervised or supported contact centre. Ideally if a report has been written recommending this, contact should be observed and an addendum report written to recommend, or otherwise, continued contact.
I am writing this very quickly, so I hope that this all makes sense!
Hi, thanks for the replies.
Yes, contact usually starts off a supervised, but i'm sure as you are aware, that usually ends pretty quickly in favour of unsupervised, followed by overnight access.
It is this rational that the mothers who have escaped violence and the children who have been abused or witnessed ( emotional abuse) the abuse can not understand.
They go into court believing that people who abuse their child will not get access and can not believe that the system is favouring these people.
When the mothers refuse they are made to look like the bad guy, ordered to have psych evaluations, the children are pressed into agreeing to contact, or if too young to understand forced into a room with the person who abused them and then the reports to the court from cafcass and the guardians are saying things like "the child was perfectly happy and settled" when it's been screaming throughout the whole process.
Physical and mental symptoms of such instances are waved aside as the children fight to cope with this further 'abuse' by the court system and no one who deals with the aftermath can understand why.
So my question to anyone brave enough to answer from the social service/ cafcass/ guardian side of things is why does the system consider ( when you have proved abuse and a child obviously suffering from past abuse and court ordered 'abuse' ) this to be in a child's best interests?
I would like to add, I'm not attacking anyone here, i'm trying to gain some insight.
Hi could I recommend that you checjk out the NSPCC website as I recently veiwed research which was jointly funded which looked at the issue of contact. As you say in some cases contact is not appropriate which is what this study was researching. They looked at the role of the guardians and the courts and have reframed what is deemed appropriate. The research concluded that contatc is not always in the best interest fo the child and therefore should not be supported or demanded by the courts. Check it out on www.nspcc.org.uk
In my area, we do support supervised contact for a long time and in some of my cases this has been going on for over two years.
I agree that the courts need to consider the issue of contact and domestic violence and, as Lins stated, researchers have been asking for this matter to be considered for many years.
In the court, there does appear to be a presumption of contact as it is viewed to be in the 'best interests of the child', irrespective of the father's relationship with the child/ren. The presumption of contact can also assume that men want to retain a positive relationship wiht their child/ren, rather than considering that it may be a reflection of his desire to continue to control both the woman and the child/ren. It has been suggested that it might be more useful to explore the notion of 'responsible parenting', rather than 'parental rights' within the context of contact.
In terms of moving this forward, I support the on-going research into this area, and also think that we need to be more directive in reports sometimes. I am currently writing a report and will not be recommending any more contact for children with a parent due to their distress in the contact, however, I am aware that this will be strongly contested. The flip side is that I have worked with children who have wanted to see their violent parent, but haven't wanted to let the other know this in case it upsets them, and these need to be managed in a way that supports both the child/ren and the non-violent parent.
I'm not sure I answer all your points raised and I suspect, I have gone off at a tangent, as always!
Kymb's point about a presumption of contact is interesting. When the Children and Adoption Act 2006, which has given courts more tools to enforce and promote agreements between separating parents, was passing through parliament, there was a pitched battle on this issue. The Conservatives wanted to legislate to for some presumption of contact (with safeguards around domestic violence etc) saying this would be in the child's best interests, and the government saw this as compromsing the principle that the child's best interests are paramount. At the time Women's Aid said that a presumption of contact already existed in practice so the legislation needed to do more to safeguard children.
I am searching for the same answer for 14 years.
Apparently, a father has his rights, whether he is an abuser or not.
I feel it is sending out the wrong message to children too.
Family court is forcing them to have contact with abuser- so in a childs mind ABUSE IS REWARDED.
Also, childs natural instinct is to avoid danger- but the court is FORCING them into danger- again confusion for child, as it is going against what feels right.
Child is also being told- silently- it is OK to hit Mummy, because Judge is rewarding Daddy, and forcing her to take children to see him.
So, mother cannot ever escape fully, can she.??
The mother and children are actually kept in a cage by the court, and have no way to break free totally.
Lawyers know the abuser will always get contact, unless he kills the child.
Courts are allowing violence to continue all the time, by allowing the abuser the freedom to dominate and control the abused using children as the pawns.
No one seems to understand this or bother to address it either.
As one abuser said to me- You can never escape me, the LAW is always on my side.
Contact is always presumed in family law.
They are using Gardners theories of course, as that is what is taught to them in conferences.
Perhaps it is time for them to think for themselves.
Gardners threat therapy has no place in todays world in my view, but Patriarchal Judges still use it as do CAFCASS.
I discovered an alarming thing being taught to CAFCASS officers too- ALL WOMEN MAKE UP DV?
That came from the top down, and is a real cause for concern for me anyway.
kymb21
Great to see your level of understanding in all this.
Sometimes, if children want to see violent parent, it is out of fear,,,,stockholm syndrome sometimes.
There is always the Fear that the court will make children have contact with violent parent, and if they say No, they feel they may pay the price or Mother might.
I do know several children, who have said they felt they were forced to say Yes to contact, and they were tricked by questions which presumed yes as the answer.
In law, there is still very archaic thinking about children- obeying Father- as he is the boss.
It is Victorian, and will take time for us to evolve to where we reward Love, tenderness and not violence.
The Guardian's role is to see the childs interests are looked after, but that is not the case in 99% of cases.
The Guardian mostly tries to get the child to the violent parent any way they can.
Often parents are locked in prison for failing to drag children by the hair to contact.
That is alarming, but true.
If parents drags child by the hair, kicking and screaming, then that is abuse, but that parent is obeying the court order.
What a message to be giving the abuser and our next generation.
Patriarchal men and women see no harm in placing children in a Fear Zone.
They have no idea how it affects their adrenal glands and their brains either.
Some do actually know, and get a kick out of watching the reactions, becuase, while invisible to others, they are actually feeding off the adrenalin like a vampires.
All the knowledge is there for all, and can be used for the positive or negative.
Many adults do not know how to inner parent, and when the sadistic inner child is let loose - others suffer.
It is often children, because they are defenseless.
Mithran,
The government says there is no presumption of contact in the family courts which of course is rediculous, even a Judge will tell you there is a presumption, no matter what the abusive parent has done, in private law cases only 0.8 % (government's own figures) of fathers get a no contact order, as 1 in 4 women suffer domestic violence (government's own figures) and 75- 80% of children witness the D.V (government's own figures) then it would appear that the courts and professionals involved are going wrong somewhere.
I recently had a conversation with a social worker who listened to the facts of the case from the mother's side (re D.V and the child's fear) and agreed that this was not in the child's best interests, when the SW was informed she had to make the final s7 report for the court her words were " ohh, how to write a balanced report", it was implied that the management were 'unwilling' to allow her own opinions of what was right and wrong to be included in the s7 and PAS was subsequently mentioned in the report.
It would appear that the 'management' of a case and intervention in what a SW can and can not write is the main problem I am finding amoungst SW in private law cases. That 'presumption' of contact has been taken literally to mean even abusive and violent parents are 'entitled' to see the children.
CAFCASS Guardians appear to be the worst at not allowing the children a voice in private law and claims of PAS, which as i'm sure your aware is discredited are now being used instead of the old chestnut 'vindictive'.
I am finding a growing number of cases where the children are taken from the mother and given to the 'abusive' parent with absolutely no logic behind it, it's becoming very illogical.
My experience of private law I have to say is not that positive. The courts instruct the poor SW to complete a Section 7 report and offer their proefessional opinion and then when you go to court you find yourself having to defend your findings. It can be just as frustrating for SW as it is for the families when you dont feel that your opinion or voice is heard either.
Since when are Guardians "indoctinated" into believing that "all women make up domestic violence" I have never heard the like women have fought long and hard for a voice and to have DV taken seriously and I hope that this issue is not going to be used to belittle the extent and the impact DV has on women and children. Can I also hilight the fact that men suffer from DV also. the NSPCC is doing great research in the areas of DV if anyone is interested and their website is very informative.
Lins,
In private laws you get two hours if you are lucky to evaluate the child, same for both parents, SW's tell me that how can they possibly identify the pro's and con's from each side, let alone get the child's wishes and feelings and personnal circumstances in that time frame, your barely scratching the surface, so i'm guessing by the time you get to court both sides have been able to rip your report to shred's on face value alone.
I believe if the best interests of the child are to be upheld then the voice of the child should be of paramount importance and should guide the report and therefore the case itself.
Hi yes you are so right. I got handed this case and told that in two weeks time I had to submit it to court. The issue surrounded contact. The mother had left her partner for DV and taken up with another DV perpetrator. I was expectedto say what level of contact she would have. I had a week to gain her trust and ascertain her wishes on top ofthat I had to meet with the father and get his side. At no point was I asked to see the children. You can't stall the courts becasue of the protocols. Nightmare. Anyway I got a great deal for the children and basically give mum the information she needed if the father prevented her from seeing the kids. I advised him that he should adhere to the courts ruling or he could end up in jail. It worked mind but that is propably more due to luck and my stubborness.
to stop contact between a child and father in public law proceedings requires a 34(4), do you know how hard it is to get a court to order no contact?
in private law proceedings i am sure the stats show only 1% of dad dont get contact when they make an application for a contact order.
Without thinking too much about this....public and private law cant really be compared so simply.... even though i seem to have made som sort of comparison above...?!?
Most Judges in the family courts will abide by what the SW or Cafcass officer/ Guardian recommends, so the easy answer when you have PROOF that the father has/is abusive is to recommend Indirect contact to witch the judge can give a percieved time frame or No order as in s1 children's act.
Just because we believe the judge will order or wants to order some sort of contact doesn't mean that he wont be satisfied as to the above orders if recommended.
The comparrison between public and private law is if a father is abusive in private law it is said to be 'in the past' this principle is not good enough in protecting the children, the mother is desperately trying to protect the child by going through the court to keep the father away and yet she is villified and threatened with a change of residence for her efforts, it shouldn't be this way.
SW should be about protecting the children from abuse, I know some SW's who will fight to the bitter end to keep the father away and yet with a 1% No contact order there are a hell of a lot who just tell the judge what they want to hear, just because 'daddy' has remarried, maybe had another child doesn't mean he's turned his life around, you still have a history of abuse and no idea if it's continuing, the children who have suffered abuse are still emotionally traumatised by past actions and yet are forced into the fire once again.
Hence if an order will not be 'in the child's best interest' then it shouldn't be made, or recommended.
From my personal experiences there are problems with private and public law in the sense that sometimes - very little evidence is required to prove either side of the story. I hear of countless ex wives making up allegations about their ex husbands that are believed in the family courts, and I hear countless stories about social workers needing very little evidence in order to establish something as a "fact". I also hear of countless fathers not wanting to be involved with their children, I also hear of social workers doing a good job and I also hear of ex husbands making up allegations about the ex wife.
I am not criticising anyone here, no particular profession or group of people but I think that Schroders Cat has raised an important point. Could this have something to do with the evidence that was presented to the court?
Again from my personal experience - having read many reports prepared for court, there are huge differences between the report writers presentation and interpretation of evidence and then the courts subsequent interpretation of that evidence.
Some reports are very detailed and furthermore reference the evidence that was presented to them. Some report writers would apply completely different logic to that evidence than someone else. Some reports do not reference any evidence at all and it could be interpreted as a social worker reporting hearsay as facts and I personally feel that this has something to do with the problem in both laws and this is why perhaps some parents feel abused by the system.
I also have examples of schroders example in reverse where children's services have had no concerns about contact and recommended as such, and this has unfortunately been overlooked by the judge in favour of the resident parent and the resident parent feels they have more of a say and the right to ignore a professional report (even though there has been no concerns) because of their hostility to the non resident parent.
My personal opinion is that the same issues exist in private and public law except in reverse.
I have read the whole thread and quite disappointed in what goes on out there. I have a case where the father was abusive to the mother, mother left whilst pregnant, allowed father to come for childs birth despite hostility. Father came for contact at mothers maternal residence, displayed his DV character, contact stopped as police involved. Father applied for contact and got supervised contact. Child was 8 months. Reports showed child was distressed and contact lasted less than 20 minutes. Courts ordered CAFCASS reports which suggested indirect contact. Naturally father not happy. Judge ordered a second CAFCASS report, CAFCASS again suggested indirect contact and a finding of fact as mother had applied for 2 non-mols. Now awaiting trial.
So despite CAFCASS recommendations for indirect contact, an order was made for Finding of fact. My personal view is that this should have been tackled earlier on as at this point, what is it going to achieve. Mother refuses to be anywhere around father, child is still too young and does not know the father. If the finding of fact finds father not guilty, mother still refuses to support contact, how will contact progress as child does not know father or anyone else. In such cases, contact is not in the best interest of the child and should be encouraged once child is old enough to understand and ready to build a bond and may not get as distressed. What are others opinions?
You ready for this one...
Your first point, yes this goes on all the time...
Your second Point, yes this goes on all the time....
My point, when I said something to Judge ( Section 37) I was accused of "interfering with the Court, this went on for 20 minutes and I still have nightmares- ( no joke) even if I was wrong- why treat me in this way? what other Job you could have could get you treated in this way? answers on a postcard.
In regard to issues of DV, try not to have to go to Court on this, if you have too pray, don't speak and watch families, parents suffer. The Court in my experience was not bothered, dont understand DV and are full of their own self importance...I would be greatfull to hear something positive though.
Julie
Hi Julie,
I'm a little confused, if a mother had suffered D.V but was away from the father / abuser why would you ask for a section 37, why not support the mother by recommending No Contact and thereby supporting the child/ ren?
As for your point of hearing something positive, unfortunately there is very little positive inside the Family courts with regards to Contact cases involving D.V, as you say the courts do not understand the principles behind it and ignore the guidelines completely forcing abused children into contact with the abuser thus continuing the emotional and physical abuse.
They have never read the wealth of literature that supports the idea that if a child is abused it is more likely to become an abuser, more likely to commit crime, more likely to turn to drink/ drugs/ self harm, more likely to parent at a young age keeping the cycle going.
Or if they have read it, they have just plain ignored it in favour of the governments stance that all children should see both parents, not matter what.
Spod: I have read the whole thread and quite disappointed in what goes on out there. I have a case where the father was abusive to the mother, mother left whilst pregnant, allowed father to come for childs birth despite hostility. Father came for contact at mothers maternal residence, displayed his DV character, contact stopped as police involved. Father applied for contact and got supervised contact. Child was 8 months. Reports showed child was distressed and contact lasted less than 20 minutes. Courts ordered CAFCASS reports which suggested indirect contact. Naturally father not happy. Judge ordered a second CAFCASS report, CAFCASS again suggested indirect contact and a finding of fact as mother had applied for 2 non-mols. Now awaiting trial. So despite CAFCASS recommendations for indirect contact, an order was made for Finding of fact. My personal view is that this should have been tackled earlier on as at this point, what is it going to achieve. Mother refuses to be anywhere around father, child is still too young and does not know the father. If the finding of fact finds father not guilty, mother still refuses to support contact, how will contact progress as child does not know father or anyone else. In such cases, contact is not in the best interest of the child and should be encouraged once child is old enough to understand and ready to build a bond and may not get as distressed. What are others opinions?
Hi Spod my answer to this is 34 (4) the courts are idiots at times and this case shows that they are not adhering to the Children Act
Hi Schoders Cat,
Court asked for Section 37, I wrote it, said father/ abuser would not cooperate, mom doing ok, father gets "finding of fact hearing" re: did he sexually abuse step-daughter? Judge said "no- he did not" critical of SW who did ABE Video. Father gets supervised contact, private agency involved, owner best friends with Judge- I ask "what is the risk assessment of kids being with dad, while on contact, issue of alcohol misuse?" Kids on CPR- no answer from agency. I turn up with kids views, mother stating "I will never get rid of him!"- mom got mental health issues. He gets barrister who is all ready asking for me to be removed from the case, this is the second SW that he has a "clash of personalities with". Dad complains to LA- some "suit" arrives and states "we dont want complaints- the customers need satisfaction. Judge shouts at me for some 20 minutes and I mean shout, my god if I had commited a criminal offence I dont think you get that robust "telling off". Dad getting contact with kids, mom using alcohol when she had not done so for 12 months, back in MH hospital for a time. Like she said she will "never be free of him" and she is sooooooo right. Judge gets to jump around on horses at the weekend, lets hope the weather stays nice for the Judge.
I learn my lesson and let them get on with it, I am enjoying working with Teenagers at the moment they treat me with a touch of respect like talk to me on the telephone and ask me to send them a Postcard when I am on my holiday!!!
I still try and support the children and the women in DV situations but the Court is a disaster- I would welcome some positive comments in regard to Court and DV. Im trying not to be negative and the Therapy I am having about the impact of work amongst other things is helping.
Hi All,
Thanks for your views. Clearly it happens everywhere. Father has complained about CAFCASS being incompenet (not one but both), supervised contact centre staff inexperienced and judges are clueless. Now father has complained to the high court judge and asked for head of family division to hear the case. What next! I guess this way it prevents the matter being appealed at high court. The NSPCC website indicates contact should be perservered under the age of 2 years. This child is now 2.5 years. Will this child suffer further emotional harm? It turns out the fathers parents are separated and do not get on and been through something similar and history seems to be repeating itself. I agree with Schoders cat that children of abusive parents tend to follow suit. The father drinks, takes drugs and suggests this is a social thing?! Has anyone got any literature around effects of DV on children? Thanks
By giving such limited information at the outset only invites negative and ill-informed comment on what are important issues. If people really want informed and sensible comments - not those born out of anger, mistrust and hurt then I do not think that this Forum is the right place. 'Shroeders Cat' start to this thread was so minimal in content as to be quite useless in attracting any sort of informed response.
Hello Rupert,
May I ask what it is you do not understand about the two senario's in the OP as everyone else seems to have understood it and posted very interesting and exceptional replies.
I find in my job at a local BC and an LA that problems are arising not only for the parents involved in Family court cases but also for the SW's that are expected to handle the influx of work ( from private law ) on top of their usual workload resulting in bad outcomes for all involved and mixed working practices across the board ( ie; the two senario's) and wanted to identify a cross section of responses for these issues, which I have recieved.
Rupert
I agree my comments are negative. I dont think they are ill-informed. Hurt you better believe it. I think my comments are sensible, being in Court on your own trying to give the SW view with lots of Lawyers and a Judge that have little understanding for unconditional positive regard and so on and so on is challenging.
I do think that this forum is the right place, so often the daily grind of getting the Care Plan completed, getting the Child Protection Plan signed, supervising a contact and so on and so on can give you the impression "you are the only person doing such tasks. To hear that there are others, which is obvious, it a breath of fresh air.
I dont think we have set out to writr a PHD, if others want to rant that ok, its not personal, if others want to write a PHD then I will read it, might have to check some of the meanings of the words, but that fine.. Why cant we have "whatever" comments on the forum?
Please start a thread for the others who can give a breath of information/ analysis that will not invite the aforementioned.After days and weeks of writing the same pieces of information for a different document ( work) it would be great to start using my skills to give a usefull and informed response.
Regards
Great to see the truth being written and I salute you all for being strong enough to write what you each feel.
Positive and Negative are merely a personal view anyway.
Now the most important thing here is...
How do we convinve the court system that it is not in the child's best interest to experience violence from its parent or against one parent.?
The court is sending out the message- a child's view anyway- that it is OK to be violent, because the judge rewards it with contact.
The abuser sees contact as victory and boasts about it to the child and abused.
The words I still remember for 15 years are..
"See, I told you, you can never escape me, because the law is always on my side."
It is truth.
Can I throw a spanner in the works. I am a registered SW and I think I am ok at my job and I have a firm understanding of the courts since i spend alot of my time there. The issue of contact for perpetrators of DV either male or female is an important issue to many people who have suffered at the hands of the courts due to thier ignorance of situations which I beleive are not correctly represented by alot of solicitors and barristers. I am not advocating alot of the comments which have been posted on this thread but i would like to share my reasons for my comments.
My ex husband was emotionally abusive to me which I was able to cope with until I had my child. It was only then did I realise the effect that his behaviour had on a child. I finally left following my ex attempting to choke me which my child witnessed. I now fight on a daily basis to prevent my child having damaging contact with his father. Why do I have to fight. Because I know if he had any sense he would take me to court to force me to give him access. I have been able to get contact down to every two months through hard work and manipulation. I am well aware that the courts wont support me and therefore try and prevent it getting into their arena and I am a Social Worker.
I know this forum is not for personal issues but sometimes experience in our personal lives can help to inform a professional resonse so thanyou for sharing yours Lins.
I have had a similar experience to you but took the ill advised view that the anger was directed at me and not the children, therefore as long as they wanted to see their father, I was willing to support that contact. That was a terrible mistake, as the children got older and more independent the emotional and eventual physical abuse was transferred to them. Amidst her hurt and anger, my daughter accused me of failing to protect her, she said ''you were the one person who knew what he was really capable of''. It was said in anger but it was also very true and for that I feel a great sense of guilt.
My understanding was/is that a parent has no right of contact, it is a child's right to have contact with a parent. Could someone clarify that for me please.
Hi Lins,
It is always worth trying to keep it out of court, however some abusers want to use the court route to continue the abuse and show just how 'powerful' they are, i'm sad to say the court allows this to happen.
Hi Harmony,
Yes, it's the child's right to 'know' both parents which has been warped into the child's right to 'see' both parents, even if the child does not want to see the other parent the court deems it in the child's best interests most of the time.
To put another slant on the whole issue, I think in cases where there has been child abuse proven, not just Dv against the other parent, those abusive parents are also still getting contact.