Is this for real?

[Tintin124]

Actually I think that is inaccurate. Whilst I emotionally don't agree based upon the information presented, we mustn't forget that the judge is the one who has had access to ALL of the information and as stated will be experienced and act with best intentions of the children first.

As such I find anyone arguing against the judge being on very thin ice.

Judges rulings are based on Laws not Common sense as I said previously. So I'm not arguing the judges decision I'm saying that "I feel its a bad decision" based on the knowledge I have and not in law terms.

 

[PaulF]

What is so difficult to understand here?



It is not HIS right, it is the CHILDREN'S right. Not the fathers, not mothers, not anyone else's, it's the Children's. How much more clear does it need to be made?

Think you may be missing an important point here.
The father is the one who applied to the court for the Residence and Contact order, not the children. So it appears it is HIS right.

Now, no one here knows the details of that particular judgment nor what evidence it was based on, or if the children actually want to have any contact with their father, including you Bernie. But, on the face of it it just looks wrong to order the victim to keep in contact with her attacker in these circumstances, wouldn't you agree.

 

[fracster]

Honest question, how many judges or magistrates live in the same "world" as the majority of the population?

 

[viv1969]

Honest question, how many judges or magistrates live in the same "world" as the majority of the population?

Actually in the case of magistrates, many.
No formal legal training required.
All sorts if "normal" folk serve.

 

[Keith W]

To be honest in all probability I think that the contact order was made before the offence for which he was jailed

And if that is in fact the case then she has every right to take it back to court and have the order rescinded

 

[PaulF]

To be honest in all probability I think that the contact order was made before the offence for which he was jailed

And if that is in fact the case then she has every right to take it back to court and have the order rescinded

Nope, he was convicted in 2012 and requested the Contact order in 2014. The dates are in the Telegraph article.

 

[Keith W]

Missed the Telegraph article, I was going by the scant information provided in the OP's link

She needs to get herself another solicitor and get back into court and have the order overturned

 

[gman]

What is so difficult to understand here?

It is not HIS right, it is the CHILDREN'S right. Not the fathers, not mothers, not anyone else's, it's the Children's. How much more clear does it need to be made?

A Judge, with all the evidence has made a decision on behalf of the children, that evidence would include the transcripts of the criminal trial. Are you somehow better qualified to make that decision, and better informed based on a few lines in a press report?

Since when is it your right or duty to deprive children of the opportunity to know their father?

The parents disagreements with each other are their concern. That disagreement does not affect the children's rights. They are theirs to have and a Courts to protect.

But it's not just between the parents, he did it in front of the children so it involves them also. What kind of father slits the throat of a child's mother in front of them? We aren't talking about him going to jail for theft etc. What if he did end up killing her, then the children would have no mother and their psycho father would be in jail - what a nice future for the children he would have left them. I don't think the children should be denied knowledge of him, but he should lose his fatherly rights until he is out.

Nobody is saying I'm better qualified and it's just my opinion - am I not allowed that? You have your opinion which appears to be based on the Judge being competent and assumingly having all the facts.

Not sending letters and photos to the father isn't denying the children the right to know their father, it would be denying the father to know about the children and I think this is pretty reasonable considering he didn't take them into very much consideration when battering their mother and slitting her throat. If he wants to write to the children then the letters/pictures should not be denied to the children because this would be taking their rights away to know their father. Also, if the children are able (or when the become able) and want to write and send pictures back then fine but if they change their mind as they get older and understand better what a horrible thing he has done then it should not be forced upon them or the mother to have to continue sending mail.

What happens as the children get older and decide they don't want to know him because of what he done. Isn't it THEIR right to cease communication? But because of the ruling their rights have been take away by this judge.

 

[Bernie174]

No where I can find that the children have or haven't said that they want anything to do with him so what you are also saying is conjecture.

No, it's not conjecture, that the way family law is.
What is conjecture is the if, buts and maybe's and the attitude amongst some on here that somehow they know better than a Judge who has all the facts.

And how many times do judges order regular contact visits between abusive parents & their children

The Judge hasn't ordered contact as such, she's simply left the door open for them to do so in the future.

If he HAD killed the mother he would be serving a life sentence & depending on extended family, the children would possibly have been taken into local authority care initially & they could even be adopted. The father wouldn't have any `updates` then!

He didn't, so it's irrelevant, and not necessarily anyway. Depending on the relationship, and wishes of the children, he could have full contact, and in all probability would have had updates.

Think you may be missing an important point here.
The father is the one who applied to the court for the Residence and Contact order, not the children. So it appears it is HIS right.

No, the point here is the rights of the children. That right, irrespective of the mother's wishes. In effect him applying is on behalf of his children.

Now, no one here knows the details of that particular judgment nor what evidence it was based on, or if the children actually want to have any contact with their father, including you Bernie.

No, the point being missed is that the Children's rights are should and are being put first. Quite obviously it is safe to assume that the Judge having heard all parties and that includes the children has made the order for a good reason.

Nobody is saying I'm better qualified and it's just my opinion - am I not allowed that? You have your opinion which appears to be based on the Judge being competent and assumingly having all the facts.

You are entitled to an opinion of course, but thats all it is and based on your feelings. As is always the case on this site, people confuse emotion and opinion with evidence.

As I said, the parents problems with each other are entirely separate from the matter of contact. OK, I spent a long time dealing with law, so perhaps I find it easier to do that than some to separate the issues and deal with them as they should be in isolation.

Like it or not, in this and many other cases, the the Judge has acted in the best interests of the children, and thats been arrived at with evidence. Thats really the end of the matter whatever anyones opinion is.

 

[PaulF]

@Bernie174 you said "It is not HIS right, it is the CHILDREN'S right. Not the fathers, not mothers, not anyone else's, it's the Children's. How much more clear does it need to be made?"

I pointed out that it was the father who applied for and was granted the order under the Children Act 1989 (Section8) which while primarily aimed at the welfare and best interests of children also grants the right of contact to the parent no longer living with the children, usually divorced etc where both parents cannot come to an agreement. So, in this case it appears that it is being used to exercise the fathers right to have contact with his children (currently 5 yr old twins), he originally requested letters and phone calls.
The judge should make any order based on the best interests of the children and take their wishes into account. When the order was requested the children would have been around 4 years old so not really old enough to make a decision.
The children were very young when the 7 hour attack that they witnessed took place and I hope for their sake that their minds have managed to block it out so that they remember nothing or very little.

How a judge can come to the conclusion that to force the victim of a 7 hour attack to write to her attacker and send photos three times a year (until the children are 16 or old enough to request no contact themselves) is beyond me, how is that good for the children? It's not going to empower their mother in any way, it's just prolonging their mother's agony.

 

[gman]

@Bernie174, I understand what you are saying and of course there's nothing we can do, it's just a debate where we can discuss our thoughts on the matter and whether or not we think the judge is correct with his judgement - is there any need to be so dismissive of other people's opinions? Besides, the Judge is a public servant and the public have a right to question anything that a public servant does. Isn't that the whole point of a Democracy, or would you prefer a Dictatorship where the public has to be 100% compliant of authority without question?


What's your thoughts on my point below?

What happens as the children get older and decide they don't want to know him because of what he done. Isn't it THEIR right to cease communication? But because of the ruling their rights have been take away by this judge.

 

[ghoti]

Nobody is saying I'm better qualified and it's just my opinion - am I not allowed that? You have your opinion which appears to be based on the Judge being competent and assumingly having all the facts.

Not sending letters and photos to the father isn't denying the children the right to know their father, it would be denying the father to know about the children and I think this is pretty reasonable considering he didn't take them into very much consideration when battering their mother and slitting her throat. If he wants to write to the children then the letters/pictures should not be denied to the children because this would be taking their rights away to know their father. Also, if the children are able (or when the become able) and want to write and send pictures back then fine but if they change their mind as they get older and understand better what a horrible thing he has done then it should not be forced upon them or the mother to have to continue sending mail.

What happens as the children get older and decide they don't want to know him because of what he done. Isn't it THEIR right to cease communication? But because of the ruling their rights have been take away by this judge.

If the children get older and want to cease communication they could pursue that. They may well do, and that would be fair enough.
The fact he is learning about them IS in the interests of the children's right to a relationship with their father because it prevents them becoming estranged. If the father spends several years not knowing anything about the children then that is detrimental to the strength of the relationship which affects the CHILDREN'S rights to a fair relationship.
Children have a right to a relationship with both natural parents and no disagreement between the parents themselves should be allowed to affect that.

 

[PaulF]

Ghoti, I can see what you are saying there and in normal circumstances where there has been a disagreement/breakup amongst the parents I would agree, but on the other hand some children are removed from one or both parents to keep them safe etc.
It could be argued that the offender here could put the safety of his children in doubt once he is released. After all, he reportedly (by the victim) had not been violent towards her prior to the attack and according to his defence he did not intend to kill her but wanted to disfigure her to make her unattractive to other men, ie if he could not have her no one else will. What's to say he won't have a similar violent reaction with his son's at some point in the future over some disagreement.

Surely there must be a better way to keep the father informed of how his children are progressing through life without forcing his victim to keep in touch. Could social services not perform that task?
Not sure what/if the order included the children being given letters from their father or any letters being kept for them until they are old enough.

 

[ghoti]

Ghoti, I can see what you are saying there and in normal circumstances where there has been a disagreement/breakup amongst the parents I would agree, but on the other hand some children are removed from one or both parents to keep them safe etc.
It could be argued that the offender here could put the safety of his children in doubt once he is released. After all, he reportedly (by the victim) had not been violent towards her prior to the attack and according to his defence he did not intend to kill her but wanted to disfigure her to make her unattractive to other men, ie if he could not have her no one else will. What's to say he won't have a similar violent reaction with his son's at some point in the future over some disagreement.

Surely there must be a better way to keep the father informed of how his children are progressing through life without forcing his victim to keep in touch. Could social services not perform that task?
Not sure what/if the order included the children being given letters from their father or any letters being kept for them until they are old enough.

I agree that it seems odd that she is being made to write to him rather than, say, social services. But I don't see it as a particularly big deal - she's not being forced into a reciprocal relationship. She just has to write to him, he's not to contact her.

Regarding whether or not he is a danger to his children, that's for the courts to decide and they've obviously decided the threat is not significant enough to prevent him being kept informed of their wellbeing.

 

[gman]

If the children get older and want to cease communication they could pursue that. They may well do, and that would be fair enough.
The fact he is learning about them IS in the interests of the children's right to a relationship with their father because it prevents them becoming estranged. If the father spends several years not knowing anything about the children then that is detrimental to the strength of the relationship which affects the CHILDREN'S rights to a fair relationship.
Children have a right to a relationship with both natural parents and no disagreement between the parents themselves should be allowed to affect that.

Good reply with interesting points, thanks!

 

[new2me]

I've not followed this story but it sounds difficult. Rather than writing a personal letter updating the father, maybe mum could just fill in a form to give updates, maybe even electronically.

 

[viv1969]

I've not followed this story but it sounds difficult. Rather than writing a personal letter updating the father, maybe mum could just fill in a form to give updates, maybe even electronically.

That's just it...she doesn't have to write a personal letter.
Type out a note with the kids updates (couple of lines will satisfy the courts.)
Few photos and copy school report.
Job done.
She doesn't have to state "Dear......" Nor does she have to sign it.
Three times a year, that's all.
If she can't even bear to see his name, she can address it using his prisoner number.

 

[Bernie174]

How a judge can come to the conclusion that to force the victim of a 7 hour attack to write to her attacker and send photos three times a year (until the children are 16 or old enough to request no contact themselves) is beyond me, how is that good for the children? It's not going to empower their mother in any way, it's just prolonging their mother's agony.

Because the criminal conviction isn't against the children, so it's largely irrelevant to the matter of contact. There are a lot of men and women serving prison sentences for similar crimes against ex partners. What happened between parents is not what the Judge is ruling on. In effect you are suggesting a second punishment, that isn't within your or the Judge in a Family Court's gift. The Judge has ruled on something based on the evidence he had in front of him. No doubt her Solicitor made all the points you have, if they did, then the Judge has ruled based on the evidential value of that.

It could be argued that the offender here could put the safety of his children in doubt once he is released. After all, he reportedly (by the victim) had not been violent towards her prior to the attack and according to his defence he did not intend to kill her but wanted to disfigure her to make her unattractive to other men,

On that you answer your own point. He has been violent towards the mother. Nothing there suggests violence towards the children. There has to be evidence to suggest that would happen, that isn't.

it's just a debate where we can discuss our thoughts on the matter and whether or not we think the judge is correct with his judgement

Debate is debatable. But my point remains, none of you have the evidence that the Judge has access to. So how can you judge him to be wrong? Besides, some seem to have made up their minds, without knowing the basics of family law, let alone any of the facts in the case.

As for your other question. No, of course it doesn't affect any decision they make when they are older. They are entitled to go before a Judge and decline any contact, the Judge must, if they are capable of making that decision take that into account. It may be, I don't know that the Children have already expressed wish to have limited contact. At the age of 5, that may not have the weight for example a 10 years wishes might have but has to be taken into account. Its something else that the hissy fit brigade didn't think about.

In short, this 'debate' is pointless, unless you have the full facts, no one here is capable or qualified to make the decision, or form a properly balanced opinion. Most of whats been written here is nothing more than outrage by proxy...again!

 

[new2me]

That's just it...she doesn't have to write a personal letter.
Type out a note with the kids updates (couple of lines will satisfy the courts.)
Few photos and copy school report.
Job done.

She could stick that same photo of her injuries in too as a reminder.

In short, this 'debate' is pointless, unless you have the full facts, no one here is capable or qualified to make the decision, or form a properly balanced opinion.

I agree. Nothing new is being debated, just the same views being aired regardless of the subject.

 

[PaulF]

Nice quoting there Bernie.

I fully understand that the offence against the mother is completely separate to the contact order, but thanks for pointing that out to anyone who was unsure.....

My point is this, the act in question regards the welfare of children, the order the act has been used for 'should' be based on what is best for the children. I think you are in agreement there. You nicely omitted the part about the act being used to exercise the rights of the father and not the children but hey ho.

Now, in the judgement the judge has ordered the mother to send the father a letter and photo three times a year. Taking all things into respect the judge would have known that the mother is also the victim of a violent crime committed by the father. Now, the average person would see that ordering a victim to contact the offender on a regular basis may cause the victim some anguish, would you agree? Following that on, a mother who is going to be upset/angry or however she may react is not at that time creating what is best for the children in her care, especially when the cause of that anguish could easily be avoided. Why could the judge not ordered that social services pass over the updates? Children of that age usually have a school photo every year and have school reports. Why punish the victim of the original crime?

I'm not saying he should not be kept informed about his children (a 'second' punishment), my point is that it does not need to be the mother who informs him, simple.

On this point:
"On that you answer your own point. He has been violent towards the mother. Nothing there suggests violence towards the children. There has to be evidence to suggest that would happen, that isn't."

My point was there was 'Nothing there suggests violence towards' the mother previously but he had a very violent reaction to a situation/disagreement. What's to say that something similar could not happen with the children.

 

[viv1969]

In actual fact, she could get anyone to do it on her behalf. Friend, family, neighbour.
So long as the updates are addressed to him, and contain the relevant information about the children it really doesn't matter.

 

[dejongj]

Without knowing all the facts and the deliberations like the judge did, this thread is just pretty useless.

 

[Bernie174]

Paul

You keep on basing your opinions on if, buts and maybe's. Thats not something a judge can do, he or she has to base it on evidence, on reports from CAFCAS and the arguments put forward by both parities. Thats all information neither you nor I have got.

I accept that looking from the outside in, without any of those things, your points have a great deal of merit. So, if the matter stops at that point, no one could disagree.

But that limited examination isn't all of it, and you have to accept that. It's a stuck record, but the Judge does have all the parts of the whole, we don't. Which is my point. I am not making any comment on if it was right or wrong, I can't, I don't have anywhere near enough information. Nor do you, or anyone else.

We don't live in the land of Minority report. So while yes, at some point in time there was probably no evidence that he would attack her, but we can't as a society assume that one act must mean another will happen, the world does not work that way, it's flawed logic.

The points been made by me, and others, this is simply a pointless discussion when based on this specific case, you can't make any meaningful opinion or decision on if this is right or not with no supporting evidence.

As a general principle then yes, it has some use, but only when people take the emotion and outrage by proxy away.