I am a MATCH mother and have been for 8 years- what Court Welfare Officers (as they were then called then) highlighted in my Private Law situation clearly had a big impact upon my child's life and my own.

Its a strange position to be in, a social worker who accourding to most reports "just wants to take your kids away" and a mother that knows the reality of not seeing their child.

 I hate 3.15pm most days as children come out of school, I dont like it when ASDA  are selling the school uniforms? What do you say when people ask? do you have kids? Christmas is a nightmare, I can't put myself forward to go on adoption panel as people can do if adoption is  a factor  in their lives.

 Can you imagine- hi, i'm Ms X social worker and MATCH mother , I can tell you what its like to miss your child, I can also tell you what its like when you have to remove them for "good reason", all very painful stuff to be honest.   

I agree. The fact is what is in the best interest of the perpertrator is deemed more important rather than the child. I am not sure why the judges are so scared to say no contact or no direct contact. In a recent hearing, CAFCASS recommended indirect contact but the perpertrator ( father ) was not happy and said if there is a will there is a way. To that the judge said what do you want me to do? I was horrified and could not believe what I was hearing. So the case was referred a second CAFCASS officer and the report suggested the same or a trial. Why?? It is putting the life of the child and the parent caring for the child through an emotional roller coaster of not knowing what is going to happen next! Why???

Hi Julie! tell me more. I am very interested only if you want to tell. I don't wany to open any painful wounds.

Spod

They dont  close....

Julie

What is a 'MATCH' mother - I have never heard the term.

 Hi Rupert,

In 1979 a "mother apart from her child" wrote to the Times Newspaper in the letters page and asked if there was any women in her position? This was  Peggy, she  was apart from her Child. I can't do a link but if you put MATCH Goggle it will come up. I am sure there is more details.

 There is a newsletter every few months- women who are apart from their children for whatever reason can discuss and share their experieneces.An important feature for me  is the section where your child's name is written on their birthday section  in the members forum-

With the boom in Facebook and other such sites there could be a way that you can find details out about your child/ young person as they "chat to their mates"- but a few years ago, for me reading his Birthday  section remembered on this site, brought me some comfort-

Being a MATCH member offered some comfort- as woman who experienced Domestic Abuse, better get back to the original topic- being able to have this noted on the WWW for me was really powerful- Its unlikely that many people read it or truely understood the significance but it was out there, I was not being told to shut up.

Maybe, I cant' say with any evidence  this is how some of the women who are in the mothers for justice campaign understand matters? I know little about the organisation/ people or their experiences- but the fact that they wish to be so vocal and telling others about what they think of the situation with their children not being  with them- may in some ways be a little simular to how I experienced being a member of MATCH and having my son's name "out there".

I have found MATCH to be a moderate and good source of support for women- it costs about £10.00 a year to join- its great to read something where you are a "mom" again event for a short time.

Regards

Julie

In my experience the heartache goes on

Hi Julie,

 You will always be a 'mom', he's the life that grew inside you, he's the baby you gave birth too and the person you will always have a connection to.

I posted the Original question and i'm quite happy for the subject to expand away from the cause to the effect of what happens when the law overlooks the morals and guidelines of society and allows abusers to dominate the process of safeguarding the children from the perpentrators.

This is especially important as the advent of  'threat therapy'  in courts for mothers (usually) who choose to continue to fight against contact orders with Proven abusers or refused to allow contact has now resulted in many mothers losing their children to the abusive parent under a reversal of residence.

This of course breaks not only the child's human rights but also breaks the fundermental rule of the children's act in regards to the court ; pt 1; 1 ,  3 ; a,b,c,e,f  ,  and most amazingly 5.

There is a running joke amoungst solicitors and barristers that you can always count on one recommendation that will not appear in a s7 report and that is the recommendation for a No Order Order ? ( personally I don't understand the joke, but apparently they find it amusing).

Anyway I degress, what I was going to say was on Julie's point about facebook and the internet, these children who want to find their mother/ father in the future will be able to do just that, there are new sites popping up everyday for adopted/ re-residenced children and parents to find each other, then I feel it will not be so much the 'sins of the fathers' that come back to haunt us it will be the 'sins of the courts'.

There are already lawsuits underway with many more to follow in the uk courts and now we have the european courts of human rights looking into the practices of the family courts in this country.

Thank you so much for this knowledge.

I discovered this threat therapy during my own research.

I could not understand why a court of law- supposedly acting in the child's best interest- would even dare to suggest Electric Shock Therapy and locking up a child of 8  behind bars, because it was too scared of being alone with its abusive parent.

15 years down the line this child is an adult, but the damage this action caused is still evident, when trigger events present themselves.

Perhaps it is time for those who have walked in our shoes to speak out more and not be gagged by law.??

Spod:

I agree. The fact is what is in the best interest of the perpertrator is deemed more important rather than the child. I am not sure why the judges are so scared to say no contact or no direct contact. In a recent hearing, CAFCASS recommended indirect contact but the perpertrator ( father ) was not happy and said if there is a will there is a way. To that the judge said what do you want me to do? I was horrified and could not believe what I was hearing. So the case was referred a second CAFCASS officer and the report suggested the same or a trial. Why?? It is putting the life of the child and the parent caring for the child through an emotional roller coaster of not knowing what is going to happen next! Why???

Why??

Because the old Patrirchal thinking is still in their consciousness- children must obey the authoritarian parent.

Also, another aspect to this is- the unconscious adding to the negative energy on our planet.

 Fear, trauma and all negative emotions add to the negative collective and we are desiring the loving peaceful  wholesome positive energy.

The problem is that all the negative emotions create wealth for a small group at the top of the pyramid, and many further down have no knowledge of this or that by obeying certain man made laws they are actually destroying our entire human race little by little.

 That is why each positive emotion of joy laughter, etc is so important for children to reach their full potential.

Hi Schroders cat,

Do you know of any cases where the perpertrators have got residency due to mother not allowing contact despite being proven as a perpertrator? I have heard of cases where the mother has got several injunctions against the father and very recently she got an indefinate injunction and he is not to see the kids. There was no physical violence but continous proven harrassment. Are you saying that as long as the mother agrees to contact despite the fathers behaviour, she is ok but if the mother refuses contact having proven he is guilty, he can still get residence of that child? Please clarify. Thanks 

Hi Spod,

I could give you a list,( if I were allowed) , and it would be a very long one and please bare in mind they are only a small percentage of cases that I personally am aware of, so times that by how many and think of a number and you'll be close.

The old saying of whomever shouts the loudest wins, or in this senario, whomever wants to keep the money-go-round of the solicitors, barrister and psychotherapists going long enough wins.

I find a good rule of thumb for finding out who is interested in seeing their child and who is 'going for gold' are the one's who want to add another layer to the court case, bring in another cafcass officer, have a guardian appointed, bring in a psychotherapist etc, this works for mums and dads in abuse cases, as it looks like the case might be drawing to an end the abuser will warrant yet another round in the court wallowing in the limelight of being 'the victim', and of course it is always the child that suffers.

I think your 'mother' in her case was either very lucky with the decision she was handed or there was an extremely good guardian/ cafcass officer assigned to the case, but that does not mean he can't go back for another bite of the apple unless the court have issued him with an s91 (14), which many believe should be mandatory in No Contact orders.

Although saying that the wind does seemed to be changing if only very slightly in regards to abusive parents, I'm not sure if the two opposition parties standing up for battered children are having any barring on this issue with the government, but the courts do seem to be paying a little more attention ( or maybe it's just the amount of lawsuits that are backed up waiting to be heard at the RCJ?) I know for some children the two years until a change of government and therefore a change of policy is too long.

Thanks Schroders cat. That is very helpful. My understanding of section 91 (14) is that it is only issued if a person repeatedly goe to court for contact with several applications. There is a special judge who issues these at the court I attend so I assume there has to be a special application for this. I agree with you when you said that All NO Contact Orders should have section 91 (14) attached to it for a number of years.

 I agree the mother had both very experienced CAFCASS officer who suggested the same. Out of interest, do you know who pays for the psychoanalysis? is it the perpertrator or the one asking for the psychoanalysis?

An  S91 (14) can be applied at anytime, but yes, the courts tend not to use them.

As for a psychological evaluation it depends on who is to be evaulated, where possible legal aid is usually asked to pay, but and if legal aid is not available parents pay, usually the one asking or the bill is split.

If a child has a guardian and therefore a solicitor the child's evaluation will usually be paid out of legal aid.

A psychological evaluation is not cheap, they tend to run in the main at about £ 6-8,000.

Hi all - I am reading this post with interest - particularly as contact is presumed to be in the children's best interests. I totally agree unless there is irrefutable evidence to suggest the contrary.

I am working on a case at the moment where a S7 report was done and recommended a shed load of contact to the father and a very slight increase to the mother. Mother has a history of problems, father doesn't.

Carers of the child do not want the child to have much contact at all with the father, but want the mother to have whatever contact she wants.

Because of the carer's position - in that they want the mother to have lots of contact and the father's contact to be reduced the guardian supported the carers because they were so against the child having contact with the father - the guardian was concerned about emotional abuse.

Case has been ongoing and in court for years with various reports ordered. Professionals now all support carers because they care for the child and contact is a secondary issue. The child's need for contact is secondary to having a permanent home.

So now the father's contact is going to be dramatically reduced and there have been no issues raised about the level of care he can provide to this child.

The mother who has a long history and who all the professionals initially said should have limited contact - is now in the position where she can have whatever contact she wants.

This is all because the carers want this and every professional going is supporting the carers.

My concerns are the effect this will have on the child and why all of the professionals are supporting the carers if they can't meet the child's contact needs.

Is this usual?