Thread by @CCChatMagazine

The judgment in this case really really bothers me.

#familycourt
#parentalalienation

Family Law Week: Re A (Children) (Parental alienation) [2019] EWFC familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed…

The background to the case is sparse but it is a case where a father has attempted to get contact with his children and it has gone on for 8 years.

In the judge’s words:

“It is a case in which a father leaves the proceedings with no contact with his children despite years of litigation, extensive professional input, the initiation of public law proceedings in a bid to support contact and many court orders.”

The judge goes on to say that there is nothing to render the father unsuitable for contact and there is little information on why the mother does not want the father to have contact.

But what bothers me- and this is something that I can’t get my head around- is the seemingly blithe unawareness to the impact that all of this litigation and contact with professionals is having on the children.

I actually find it astonishing

The judge says: “ On my counting this is now the 36th time that the proceedings have been before the court. At least 10 professional people have been involved. “

The judge continues: ‘I have received a communication from one child refusing to have meetings with 'any more social workers, therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, guardians, et cetera.'

And it would appear that he has no understanding of why that might be the case!

Although he does state:
‘Family members (especially children)...develop litigation fatigue and learn to resent the intrusions into their lives by a succession of professional people. As the children have done, people reach a stage where they say: 'no more.'

The judge also mentions:

‘ A particular difficulty in this case has been the absence, at times, of collaborative working by professionals.’

He says :
‘Early intervention is essential in a case such as this, in my opinion. It did not occur in this case. It took years (probably five) to identify the extent of the emotional and psychological issues of the mother. ‘

I’m wondering WHAT the emotional and psych issues were and HOW serious the court was at actually addressing them, rather addressing them as a means to contact.

Without knowing more, the subtext I’m getting is that there was an issue with trauma.

Other aspects that make me wonder what support was put in place for the mother AND children which were THERAPEUTIC and not as part of an assessment for contact are:

‘By my order I directed that the children should live with their father for just over seven weeks on the basis that they would not see their mother during that period. 1/

‘In my opinion, the handover went badly wrong; the children were extremely distressed and resistant to the attempts to place them with the father. 2/

‘The schools became very concerned about the level of distress that the children were showing, and the police became involved. ‘ 3/

‘Within a short period of time after the children started to live with their father, they ran away from their father several times, refused to eat and exhibited extreme distress.’ 4/

‘So extreme did matters become that, after further attempts at keeping the children with the father, they returned to their mother less than a month after the hearing. They have remained there since with the father having no more contact.’ 5/

I’m wondering why the court seemed to think that this level of distress was in their ‘ best interest’ without considering the long term harm to them ?

I read this ( from the same judgment)and can’t help thinking ‘ No shit, Sherlock’

All I can think about is how the children must have been feeling.

“ In her evidence at the final hearing Ms Woodall stated that she thought that the children had a 'strong but suppressed attachment' to their father which, when re-awakened, would lead to a successful transfer.”

She clearly turned out to be wrong.

“ A matter of concern to me, and learning (since I was the judge in charge), was the absence of full and careful discussion with the children's schools notwithstanding that the transfers took place there.”