Urgent Query re: Family Court and Coronavirus legislation
Discussion
Hi all,
I apologise for the urgent post - I am in a similar position to my previous thread in here, whereby I am being a McKenzie Friend and we have been thrown a curveball by an expensive barrister at the last possible minute...
We are in court very, very soon and we have just been made aware of this:
https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/coronavirus...
I quote as follows - parts in bold I have added for clarity regarding my concerns:
Quote begins:
Coronavirus Crisis: Guidance on Compliance with Family Court Child Arrangement Orders
During the current Coronavirus Crisis some parents whose children are the subject of Child Arrangements Orders made by the Family Court have been understandably concerned about their ability to meet the requirements of these court orders safely in the wholly unforeseen circumstances that now apply.
This short statement is intended to offer advice but, as the circumstances of each child and family will differ, any advice can only be in the most general form.
Parental responsibility for a child who is the subject of a Child Arrangements Order [‘CAO’] made by the Family Court rests with the child’s parents and not with the court.
The country is in the middle of a Public Health crisis on an unprecedented scale. The expectation must be that parents will care for children by acting sensibly and safely when making decisions regarding the arrangements for their child and deciding where and with whom their child spends time.
Parents must abide by the ‘Rules on Staying at Home and Away from Others’ issued by the government on 23 March [‘the Stay at Home Rules’]. In addition to these Rules, advice about staying safe and reducing the spread of infection has been issued and updated by Public Health England and Public Health Wales [‘PHE/PHW’].
The Stay at Home Rules have made the general position clear: it is no longer permitted for a person, and this would include a child, to be outside their home for any purpose other than essential shopping, daily exercise, medical need or attending essential work.
Government guidance issued alongside the Stay at Home Rules on 23rd March deals specifically with child contact arrangements. It says:
“Where parents do not live in the same household, children under 18 can be moved between their parents’ homes.”
This establishes an exception to the mandatory ‘stay at home’ requirement; it does not, however, mean that children must be moved between homes.
The decision whether a child is to move between parental homes is for the child’s parents to make after a sensible assessment of the circumstances, including the child’s present health, the risk of infection and the presence of any recognised vulnerable individuals in one household or the other.
More generally, the best way to deal with these difficult times will be for parents to communicate with one another about their worries, and what they think would be a good, practical solution. Many people are very worried about Coronavirus and the health of themselves, their children and their extended family. Even if some parents think it is safe for contact to take place, it might be entirely reasonable for the other parent to be genuinely worried about this.
Where parents, acting in agreement, exercise their parental responsibility to conclude that the arrangements set out in a CAO should be temporarily varied they are free to do so. It would be sensible for each parent to record such an agreement in a note, email or text message sent to each other.
Where parents do not agree to vary the arrangements set out in a CAO, but one parent is sufficiently concerned that complying with the CAO arrangements would be against current PHE/PHW advice, then that parent may exercise their parental responsibility and vary the arrangement to one that they consider to be safe.
If, after the event, the actions of a parent acting on their own in this way are questioned by the other parent in the Family Court, the court is likely to look to see whether each parent acted reasonably and sensibly in the light of the official advice and the Stay at Home Rules in place at that time, together with any specific evidence relating to the child or family.
/b]Where, either as a result of parental agreement or as a result of one parent on their own varying the arrangements, a child does not get to spend time with the other parent as set down in the CAO, the courts will expect alternative arrangements to be made to establish and maintain regular contact[/b] between the child and the other parent within the Stay at Home Rules, for example remotely – by Face-Time, WhatsApp Face-Time, Skype, Zoom or other video connection or, if that is not possible, by telephone.
The key message should be that, where Coronavirus restrictions cause the letter of a court order to be varied, the spirit of the order should nevertheless be delivered by making safe alternative arrangements for the child.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane
President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice
24 March 2020
Quote ends
I am now extremely concerned.
The other side in the case are not right in the head, manipulative, lying, have been medicating their child unnecessarily, and seek to control the child and restrict contact as much as possible in order to cause distress to the person I am helping, regardless of the damage it is doing to the child.
They are basically a narcissist but with a nasty twist.
I was expecting us to do quite well in the hearing tomorrow - but...
... from what I can make out in the 'advice' above, the other party can now just go 'No, you can't have the child back, it is far too dangerous out there, they are staying with me until lockdown ends / until a vaccine is created', and there's nothing the person I am helping could do about it, even if that means 3, 6, 12 solid weeks of lockdown??
Is there any realistic way to defend against this 'advice' and avoid the above happening?
Is it possible to argue that the note is 'advice' not the letter of the law, and therefore has no legal weight??
Any assistance would be a massive, MASSIVE help and you would have my eternal thanks.
I apologise for the urgent post - I am in a similar position to my previous thread in here, whereby I am being a McKenzie Friend and we have been thrown a curveball by an expensive barrister at the last possible minute...
We are in court very, very soon and we have just been made aware of this:
https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/coronavirus...
I quote as follows - parts in bold I have added for clarity regarding my concerns:
Quote begins:
Coronavirus Crisis: Guidance on Compliance with Family Court Child Arrangement Orders
During the current Coronavirus Crisis some parents whose children are the subject of Child Arrangements Orders made by the Family Court have been understandably concerned about their ability to meet the requirements of these court orders safely in the wholly unforeseen circumstances that now apply.
This short statement is intended to offer advice but, as the circumstances of each child and family will differ, any advice can only be in the most general form.
Parental responsibility for a child who is the subject of a Child Arrangements Order [‘CAO’] made by the Family Court rests with the child’s parents and not with the court.
The country is in the middle of a Public Health crisis on an unprecedented scale. The expectation must be that parents will care for children by acting sensibly and safely when making decisions regarding the arrangements for their child and deciding where and with whom their child spends time.
Parents must abide by the ‘Rules on Staying at Home and Away from Others’ issued by the government on 23 March [‘the Stay at Home Rules’]. In addition to these Rules, advice about staying safe and reducing the spread of infection has been issued and updated by Public Health England and Public Health Wales [‘PHE/PHW’].
The Stay at Home Rules have made the general position clear: it is no longer permitted for a person, and this would include a child, to be outside their home for any purpose other than essential shopping, daily exercise, medical need or attending essential work.
Government guidance issued alongside the Stay at Home Rules on 23rd March deals specifically with child contact arrangements. It says:
“Where parents do not live in the same household, children under 18 can be moved between their parents’ homes.”
This establishes an exception to the mandatory ‘stay at home’ requirement; it does not, however, mean that children must be moved between homes.
The decision whether a child is to move between parental homes is for the child’s parents to make after a sensible assessment of the circumstances, including the child’s present health, the risk of infection and the presence of any recognised vulnerable individuals in one household or the other.
More generally, the best way to deal with these difficult times will be for parents to communicate with one another about their worries, and what they think would be a good, practical solution. Many people are very worried about Coronavirus and the health of themselves, their children and their extended family. Even if some parents think it is safe for contact to take place, it might be entirely reasonable for the other parent to be genuinely worried about this.
Where parents, acting in agreement, exercise their parental responsibility to conclude that the arrangements set out in a CAO should be temporarily varied they are free to do so. It would be sensible for each parent to record such an agreement in a note, email or text message sent to each other.
Where parents do not agree to vary the arrangements set out in a CAO, but one parent is sufficiently concerned that complying with the CAO arrangements would be against current PHE/PHW advice, then that parent may exercise their parental responsibility and vary the arrangement to one that they consider to be safe.
If, after the event, the actions of a parent acting on their own in this way are questioned by the other parent in the Family Court, the court is likely to look to see whether each parent acted reasonably and sensibly in the light of the official advice and the Stay at Home Rules in place at that time, together with any specific evidence relating to the child or family.
/b]Where, either as a result of parental agreement or as a result of one parent on their own varying the arrangements, a child does not get to spend time with the other parent as set down in the CAO, the courts will expect alternative arrangements to be made to establish and maintain regular contact[/b] between the child and the other parent within the Stay at Home Rules, for example remotely – by Face-Time, WhatsApp Face-Time, Skype, Zoom or other video connection or, if that is not possible, by telephone.
The key message should be that, where Coronavirus restrictions cause the letter of a court order to be varied, the spirit of the order should nevertheless be delivered by making safe alternative arrangements for the child.
The Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew McFarlane
President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice
24 March 2020
Quote ends
I am now extremely concerned.
The other side in the case are not right in the head, manipulative, lying, have been medicating their child unnecessarily, and seek to control the child and restrict contact as much as possible in order to cause distress to the person I am helping, regardless of the damage it is doing to the child.
They are basically a narcissist but with a nasty twist.
I was expecting us to do quite well in the hearing tomorrow - but...
... from what I can make out in the 'advice' above, the other party can now just go 'No, you can't have the child back, it is far too dangerous out there, they are staying with me until lockdown ends / until a vaccine is created', and there's nothing the person I am helping could do about it, even if that means 3, 6, 12 solid weeks of lockdown??
Is there any realistic way to defend against this 'advice' and avoid the above happening?
Is it possible to argue that the note is 'advice' not the letter of the law, and therefore has no legal weight??
Any assistance would be a massive, MASSIVE help and you would have my eternal thanks.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Tuesday 14th April 22:30
Not a lawyer, but.
Is there a solid, real reason the RP may think it is sensible to leave the child in one house for the lockdown? Shielding parents or people in either house? If so, you're going to be on dubious ground, because the very rational argument can be made that it is safer not to switch between. And faced with that, it might be better to cede the point, and document the alternative access arrangements in detail, and then start again when we come out of lockdown. That might be weeks, but it's certain to be a lot shorter than a vaccine, so committing to that at least keeps an end game in sight.
If there is no risk involved in moving the child, it's going to come down to arguments, they have a barrister, you don't. Be prepared to lose this round.
Is there a solid, real reason the RP may think it is sensible to leave the child in one house for the lockdown? Shielding parents or people in either house? If so, you're going to be on dubious ground, because the very rational argument can be made that it is safer not to switch between. And faced with that, it might be better to cede the point, and document the alternative access arrangements in detail, and then start again when we come out of lockdown. That might be weeks, but it's certain to be a lot shorter than a vaccine, so committing to that at least keeps an end game in sight.
If there is no risk involved in moving the child, it's going to come down to arguments, they have a barrister, you don't. Be prepared to lose this round.
This whole sequence of events was triggered by an Emergency Court order being applied for! lol
Next hearing likely to determine either Final Order or going for Fact Finding and all that nonsense...
Am sort of wondering if playing the other party's card before them ("We're really worried about the kids going out until it's safe"...) would prevent them doing it and buy time for this lockdown stuff to finish.
Do we even have an end date yet??
Additionally, the other party claims a host of illnesses that would surely place her in the 'vulnerable' category, so it could be played as protecting the other party (but might be somewhat obvious...)
This being guidance, I personally would take it as just that, but I imagine its weight would have to be tested in a court to determine whether the law as written stands or the (incorrect) Govt guidelines they refer to carry weight.
Beyond annoying.
Next hearing likely to determine either Final Order or going for Fact Finding and all that nonsense...
Am sort of wondering if playing the other party's card before them ("We're really worried about the kids going out until it's safe"...) would prevent them doing it and buy time for this lockdown stuff to finish.
Do we even have an end date yet??
Additionally, the other party claims a host of illnesses that would surely place her in the 'vulnerable' category, so it could be played as protecting the other party (but might be somewhat obvious...)
This being guidance, I personally would take it as just that, but I imagine its weight would have to be tested in a court to determine whether the law as written stands or the (incorrect) Govt guidelines they refer to carry weight.
Beyond annoying.
I would start with an objective view of the risks of each house
If one is a housewife and the other a Nhs doctor I think we can agree the doctor is higher risk
If the risks are the same then there is little real argument. I would assume a court would take a dim view of advantage was taken
If one is a housewife and the other a Nhs doctor I think we can agree the doctor is higher risk
If the risks are the same then there is little real argument. I would assume a court would take a dim view of advantage was taken
I was given different advice and when the police came to my house as a neighbour said I was having loads of people over they said my kids could move between homes of both parents but I have a shared care order and didn't even want to see my order once they established it was my children.
There mum is a trainee nurse and will not stop going to see her new bf at weekends and staying with him.
She says she will bring the virus home working in a hospital anyway!
I assumed taking the kids and keeping them at my house would be seen as bad by the courts!
There mum is a trainee nurse and will not stop going to see her new bf at weekends and staying with him.
She says she will bring the virus home working in a hospital anyway!
I assumed taking the kids and keeping them at my house would be seen as bad by the courts!
Thank you all for your responses 
I'm heartened to hear the Police have shown a sensible approach.
I am very much of the mind that a rational and balanced assessment of such a situation would be a sensible idea, and would clearly show minimal risks and therefore no issues, but the other party does not work and seemingly has hours to think up drama-creating BS for reasons we don't understand, which means rational thoughts are few and far between, unfortunately... We seriously think that they have Munchausen By Proxy.
The person I'm helping is working but it's only ever with one other person in a controlled environment (in terms of no other visitors) so exposure risks are not that high, I would argue.
As it turns out in the end, the other party was only granted non-overnight contact, so I am hopeful this will mean a much-reduced risk of the child being retained.
However, the proof is in the pudding... so we will just have to wait and see...
As noted, they will do themselves no favours at future court dates so hopefully they will realise that.
I am still of the mind that the guidance above places children at risk from controlling parties in a relationship, and is furthering the panic-inducing agenda led by the BBC et al, but then I am no lawyer etc.
I am hopeful that the lockdown will not be in place for long, for kids if no-one else, as that would remove the need for all this stress - I eagerly await the news from Denmark when they review how their opening of schools is going!
EDIT: Well, assuming people aren't just allowed to keep their kids off school if they are scared...
Hopefully we might have an antigen test soon as well, and some idea about immunity timescales - if we can get DIY home test kits then being able to confirm we've had it and can crack on with our lives would be a massive benefit.
Anyway, I'm going to bed now - I need to try to drop my stress levels and get some rest... lol
Thank you again, all, it is much appreciated!
I'm heartened to hear the Police have shown a sensible approach.
I am very much of the mind that a rational and balanced assessment of such a situation would be a sensible idea, and would clearly show minimal risks and therefore no issues, but the other party does not work and seemingly has hours to think up drama-creating BS for reasons we don't understand, which means rational thoughts are few and far between, unfortunately... We seriously think that they have Munchausen By Proxy.
The person I'm helping is working but it's only ever with one other person in a controlled environment (in terms of no other visitors) so exposure risks are not that high, I would argue.
As it turns out in the end, the other party was only granted non-overnight contact, so I am hopeful this will mean a much-reduced risk of the child being retained.
However, the proof is in the pudding... so we will just have to wait and see...
As noted, they will do themselves no favours at future court dates so hopefully they will realise that.
I am still of the mind that the guidance above places children at risk from controlling parties in a relationship, and is furthering the panic-inducing agenda led by the BBC et al, but then I am no lawyer etc.
I am hopeful that the lockdown will not be in place for long, for kids if no-one else, as that would remove the need for all this stress - I eagerly await the news from Denmark when they review how their opening of schools is going!
EDIT: Well, assuming people aren't just allowed to keep their kids off school if they are scared...
Hopefully we might have an antigen test soon as well, and some idea about immunity timescales - if we can get DIY home test kits then being able to confirm we've had it and can crack on with our lives would be a massive benefit.
Anyway, I'm going to bed now - I need to try to drop my stress levels and get some rest... lol
Thank you again, all, it is much appreciated!
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 15th April 23:54
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 16th April 00:13
speedyman said:
It would be better to just tell the court why your friend poses no risk of passing on covid to the child.
I agree!My main concern is that retention of a child ("variation of a Child Arrangements Order"...) on the basis of perceived danger can be implemented unilaterally at any time by one of the parents, and I can't see a way to stop that happening!
Would one apply for an Ex Party emergency hearing?
How could one justify doing so if the other party is 'following Governent guidance' and the 'advice note' in the OP?
It seems it would be impossible to overturn such a unilateral decision that was based on no actual evidence (e.g. risk assessment showing 0.05% mortality rate in children, or whatever the figure is), hence my concern that it places an enormous amount of power and control in the hands of parties that may wish to do such things for whatever bizarre/twisted/self-interest reasons they may have.
In an ideal world we'd all be able to have reasoned conversations and work things out between ourselves and another party - but sadly many people are not reasonable! If they were, perhaps there wouldn't be so many divorces
lolEDIT: I'm actually half-tempted to write to the Rt Hon gentleman and ask if he has considered the fears I have expressed in this thread!
Have you had the hearing, OP?
The President of the Family Division's note is a general guideline, and is pretty sensible, but each Judge must deal with each case on its particular facts. Keep trying with Advocate to see if someone will take on the case.
As medication for the child may be an issue in the case, has there been any involvement of NHS and/or social services agencies? If there is a real issue as to child welfare, you may wish to contact the Official Solicitor, who represents the interests of children in some disputes.
Detail point: the Latin term is "ex parte", not "ex party". The Courts nowadays tend to prefer the term "without notice" in place of "ex parte".
The President of the Family Division's note is a general guideline, and is pretty sensible, but each Judge must deal with each case on its particular facts. Keep trying with Advocate to see if someone will take on the case.
As medication for the child may be an issue in the case, has there been any involvement of NHS and/or social services agencies? If there is a real issue as to child welfare, you may wish to contact the Official Solicitor, who represents the interests of children in some disputes.
Detail point: the Latin term is "ex parte", not "ex party". The Courts nowadays tend to prefer the term "without notice" in place of "ex parte".
OP I had something fairly similar with my ex and unwarranted prescriptions for one of our kids. I don’t know what you’re dealing with but in my case it was anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medicines. Pointing this out to the court is going to be far from straightforward as her legals will effectively pitch you against the doctor who wrote the prescription.
I tried to get involved as much as possible with the health agencies, ensured I received copies of all letters and invitations to my daughter’s appointments. If I couldn’t make one I would try and get hold of the doctor in advance by phone ensuring he understood that my experience of my daughters behaviour was different from my ex’s and that I advocated a consistent and cautious approach to medication (rather than the ex who was erratic and would try to ramp up the prescription whenever it suited her agenda.)
You have to be careful you don’t come across as an aggrieved bitter “other parent” in a custody / divorce war. I’m sure my ex was very good at painting this picture and making professional allies out of schools / doctors / social workers because I felt they look an instantly dismissive view towards me and it was incredibly hard to engage anyone and get taken seriously.
I didn’t “win” in the end. She ended up making a demand for spouse + child maintenance (about 50% above CMS by the time we negotiated her down) and I accepted it in return for an easier life.
Now she’s getting something the mental act has been turned off, she’s as soft as putty, we have a co-operative shared care setup in place and my daughter has been off any medications for many months. And surprise surprise I have the kids near enough 50% of the time whilst she swans around collecting a handsome amount of benefits and maintenance without any intention of becoming self sufficient.
Good luck.
I tried to get involved as much as possible with the health agencies, ensured I received copies of all letters and invitations to my daughter’s appointments. If I couldn’t make one I would try and get hold of the doctor in advance by phone ensuring he understood that my experience of my daughters behaviour was different from my ex’s and that I advocated a consistent and cautious approach to medication (rather than the ex who was erratic and would try to ramp up the prescription whenever it suited her agenda.)
You have to be careful you don’t come across as an aggrieved bitter “other parent” in a custody / divorce war. I’m sure my ex was very good at painting this picture and making professional allies out of schools / doctors / social workers because I felt they look an instantly dismissive view towards me and it was incredibly hard to engage anyone and get taken seriously.
I didn’t “win” in the end. She ended up making a demand for spouse + child maintenance (about 50% above CMS by the time we negotiated her down) and I accepted it in return for an easier life.
Now she’s getting something the mental act has been turned off, she’s as soft as putty, we have a co-operative shared care setup in place and my daughter has been off any medications for many months. And surprise surprise I have the kids near enough 50% of the time whilst she swans around collecting a handsome amount of benefits and maintenance without any intention of becoming self sufficient.
Good luck.
Edited by theboss on Thursday 16th April 07:55
RSTurboPaul said:
Thank you all for your responses
As noted, they will do themselves no favours at future court dates so hopefully they will realise that.
Don't be to sure I was lucky I think only went to court once and the court sided with me and it was all done and dusted. However she still slags me off to the kids and threatens to breach the agreement and thats only a month after it was set!As noted, they will do themselves no favours at future court dates so hopefully they will realise that.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 15th April 23:54
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Thursday 16th April 00:13
However 12 months of pain 9 months having a solicitor and trying to get agreement and stop her being controlling.
Friend of mine has massive issues with his ex stopping him seeing the kids and he doesn't seem to get much luck in court, his ex has stop him seeing his kids for safety now but her bf and kids come and stay over and kids go back to their mum!
He feels the courts let a mother get away with murder and she has assaulted a child and been reported!
Breadvan72 said:
Have you had the hearing, OP?
The President of the Family Division's note is a general guideline, and is pretty sensible, but each Judge must deal with each case on its particular facts. Keep trying with Advocate to see if someone will take on the case.
As medication for the child may be an issue in the case, has there been any involvement of NHS and/or social services agencies? If there is a real issue as to child welfare, you may wish to contact the Official Solicitor, who represents the interests of children in some disputes.
Detail point: the Latin term is "ex parte", not "ex party". The Courts nowadays tend to prefer the term "without notice" in place of "ex parte".
Hello sir!The President of the Family Division's note is a general guideline, and is pretty sensible, but each Judge must deal with each case on its particular facts. Keep trying with Advocate to see if someone will take on the case.
As medication for the child may be an issue in the case, has there been any involvement of NHS and/or social services agencies? If there is a real issue as to child welfare, you may wish to contact the Official Solicitor, who represents the interests of children in some disputes.
Detail point: the Latin term is "ex parte", not "ex party". The Courts nowadays tend to prefer the term "without notice" in place of "ex parte".
Thank you again for your earlier assistance
and I thank you for the above - it looks very useful to know!EDIT: Jeeeeez, I've waffled on... TL:DR - If you would be so minded, I have taken the liberty of bolding yet more questions I have! You are under no obligation to respond, of course, and I will remain grateful either way
The 'Ex Party' error was an autocorrect-induced typo, stupid technology thinking it knows better... haha. It is good to know that there is a move towards more 'plain English' wording, though, as that can only assist those of us without any legal training.
re: the court hearing, it has indeed happened!
It was another interesting experience as a layman (although very stressful in the lead up to it, as my somewhat panicked tone in the OP may have indicated). The judge was pin sharp (again) and took no nonsense from the other party's barrister (whom I note appears to have no compunction regarding the falsehoods they have written into their submissions to date...).
Contact was granted but limited to non-overnight only, which I hope will reduce potential risk of my fears being realised related to the guidance in the OP. Medical opinion was shown to be that medication is not needed, which should hopefully reduce risk of any such issues being repeated going forward. Section 7 is to be the next step, in order to increase understanding of what has happened to date and the reasons for it (as I understand it?) and then we have the fun of Fact Finding.
Cafcass and Social Services have both reported so far, which has brought out the issues that the person I'm helping has been trying to get noticed and dealt with for a long time, but I'm not sure which of those organisations will end up doing the S7 report - I guess a lot depends on their capacity generally, nevermind in these 'interesting' coronavirus times.
Overall I feel it was a positive result for us, so I am very grateful for all the help I have received on here - thank you to everyone
Now we just need to get prepared for Fact Finding... I think I will have a minor heart attack before that one due to the stress and worry about getting everything together and not getting it wrong!!
I will try to read up on what happens and what we need to do for the response to the S7 report we must submit, although thinking of questions for cross examination is going to be challenging because we are not trained to think in the same way as someone with Legal training. I fear we will just think up really dumb, basic questions that don't put the other party in a situation where they are unable to do anything but respond in the way we might like them to do. We are too 'nice' - we are not trained to 'go in for the kill', as it were.
Similarly, trying to predict what the other side's barrister is going to ask seems an impossibility - they seem happy to just make stuff up and submit it, so their questions could be around things that bear no resemblance to the facts of the matter, or (as they have tried to do already) reframe events such that black is white and vice versa.
I have been told that a Scott Schedule(?) may be needed, which would agree between the parties the matters to be tested, but my understanding may be wrong, and/or it may not be needed when one party is a Litigant in Person? (If the latter, when would we need to advise the court if we secure Legal Aid / Advocate representation? And will it change the procedures?)
With regards to the barrister's disregard for the truth, I note that they have drafted the Order from the hearing to include detailed directions that I do not recall being specified by the Judge. What has been included is more what would benefit the other side and inconvenience us, as the elements in question were asked for in their submission but not discussed / agreed / specified in detail during the hearing.
I am therefore going to respond with what I believe to be a correct version of directions.
I presume the barrister is bound by principle? the law? to forward both versions to the judge for them to confirm which is correct? They did so last time I queried something (and good job I did, as my version was the version agreed by the judge...).
I guess what I really want to know is if (high quality) Barristers regularly include untruths and fabrications within their documents/submissions and when writing up Orders?
I presume such an approach is taken on the basis that it creates more work for the other party and tries to suck them into a whirlpool of detail instead of addressing the main thrusts of the arguments? (And attempts to create a paper trail of 'truth' (even if untrue) because it's impossible to rebut every single falsehood in the short timeslot for a hearing?)
I do appreciate it is a combative environment and Barristers are being paid to 'win' (which must be why they forward their submissions to us at midnight the night before we are in court
), but it seems highly unethical, especially against Litigants in Person who can be (and seemingly are) taken advantage of due to their lack of training/experience.As someone who always tries to deal only in the truth (because life is a lot less stressful and less hard work that way) I am finding it very hard to deal with people who flat-out lie for their own / their party's benefit. It leaves a very sour taste in the mouth and does a disservice to what is a highly trained, highly skilled, highly paid profession.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 17th April 01:11
theboss said:
OP I had something fairly similar with my ex and unwarranted prescriptions for one of our kids. I don’t know what you’re dealing with but in my case it was anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medicines. Pointing this out to the court is going to be far from straightforward as her legals will effectively pitch you against the doctor who wrote the prescription.
I tried to get involved as much as possible with the health agencies, ensured I received copies of all letters and invitations to my daughter’s appointments. If I couldn’t make one I would try and get hold of the doctor in advance by phone ensuring he understood that my experience of my daughters behaviour was different from my ex’s and that I advocated a consistent and cautious approach to medication (rather than the ex who was erratic and would try to ramp up the prescription whenever it suited her agenda.)
You have to be careful you don’t come across as an aggrieved bitter “other parent” in a custody / divorce war. I’m sure my ex was very good at painting this picture and making professional allies out of schools / doctors / social workers because I felt they look an instantly dismissive view towards me and it was incredibly hard to engage anyone and get taken seriously.
I didn’t “win” in the end. She ended up making a demand for spouse + child maintenance (about 50% above CMS by the time we negotiated her down) and I accepted it in return for an easier life.
Now she’s getting something the mental act has been turned off, she’s as soft as putty, we have a co-operative shared care setup in place and my daughter has been off any medications for many months. And surprise surprise I have the kids near enough 50% of the time whilst she swans around collecting a handsome amount of benefits and maintenance without any intention of becoming self sufficient.
Good luck.
You appear to be have had a near-identical experience to the person I am helping, up to the point of going to court!I tried to get involved as much as possible with the health agencies, ensured I received copies of all letters and invitations to my daughter’s appointments. If I couldn’t make one I would try and get hold of the doctor in advance by phone ensuring he understood that my experience of my daughters behaviour was different from my ex’s and that I advocated a consistent and cautious approach to medication (rather than the ex who was erratic and would try to ramp up the prescription whenever it suited her agenda.)
You have to be careful you don’t come across as an aggrieved bitter “other parent” in a custody / divorce war. I’m sure my ex was very good at painting this picture and making professional allies out of schools / doctors / social workers because I felt they look an instantly dismissive view towards me and it was incredibly hard to engage anyone and get taken seriously.
I didn’t “win” in the end. She ended up making a demand for spouse + child maintenance (about 50% above CMS by the time we negotiated her down) and I accepted it in return for an easier life.
Now she’s getting something the mental act has been turned off, she’s as soft as putty, we have a co-operative shared care setup in place and my daughter has been off any medications for many months. And surprise surprise I have the kids near enough 50% of the time whilst she swans around collecting a handsome amount of benefits and maintenance without any intention of becoming self sufficient.
Good luck.
Edited by theboss on Thursday 16th April 07:55
I'm sorry to hear you had to go through it, and that your wallet is being destroyed, but I guess we must think of things in the bigger picture - it's only money, and if 'spending' it on a crazy ex guarantees your child is safe and healthy and you can see them, it is money well spent
You can't take it with you, and all that... lolI'm hoping that we will be able to survive Fact Finding without the person I'm helping being demolished in the box by what appears to be a Barrister without ethics, but we'll have to see how it goes. With luck, the Section 7 report will help bring out further the issues flagged up already - which I hope would then over-ride any 'poor performance' under interrogation, sorry, cross-examination!
I doubt the crazy ex in this case would ever stop her dirty tricks campaign - every phone call is an attempt to elicit information that she can use against us, every contact an opportunity to trick the child into telling her things. I think I said it before - it's like she's living in Eastenders and thinks it's a normal way to act, creating drama out of nothing and stress where there doesn't need to be any. The child's welfare is of little concern, seemingly - what apparently matters more is that she has one over on the person I'm helping, and that she is getting attention. As mentioned, Munchausen by Proxy fits almost exactly with what she does.
At some point there will also be divorce proceedings to get through - I am betting that she is trying to get a Lives-With-more-than-50%-of-the-time order in place so that she can then try to screw money out of him for child maintenance payments and for herself...
It'd all be pitiful / amusing if the impacts on the child weren't so serious. The person I'm helping would happily do a 50/50 informal agreement if she wasn't unhinged, but the court route is the only way to try to get her to stop mistreating the child and give him more access. There's not too many years till the child's view has to be taken into account (if I understand how it works correctly), so if we can get the child to that point without further damage from the mother, they will hopefully understand which parent is going to give them better care and ask to stay with them.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 17th April 01:40
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Friday 17th April 01:42
surveyor_101 said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Thank you all for your responses
As noted, they will do themselves no favours at future court dates so hopefully they will realise that.
Don't be to sure I was lucky I think only went to court once and the court sided with me and it was all done and dusted. However she still slags me off to the kids and threatens to breach the agreement and thats only a month after it was set!As noted, they will do themselves no favours at future court dates so hopefully they will realise that.
However 12 months of pain 9 months having a solicitor and trying to get agreement and stop her being controlling.
Friend of mine has massive issues with his ex stopping him seeing the kids and he doesn't seem to get much luck in court, his ex has stop him seeing his kids for safety now but her bf and kids come and stay over and kids go back to their mum!
He feels the courts let a mother get away with murder and she has assaulted a child and been reported!
Likewise, I think it is unfair that those with money seem to come out better than those without - but I guess the Legal Aid changes have a lot to do with that.
Sounds like you've done pretty well compared to many - hopefully the kids will realise who is doing them right, they aren't stupid
I am told that being a consistent good parent is key, as the child will realise soon enough! (Doesn't always work, but we can but try...)All this would be much less hassle if people weren't bitter and twisted or just plain not right in the head! lol
RSTurboPaul said:
I was looking at Wikivorce previously - that is a site that will thoroughly depress you, some of the stories of how people cannot get their kids into a safe environment are terrible. Makes one feel like there is no hope!
Likewise, I think it is unfair that those with money seem to come out better than those without - but I guess the Legal Aid changes have a lot to do with that.
Sounds like you've done pretty well compared to many - hopefully the kids will realise who is doing them right, they aren't stupid I am told that being a consistent good parent is key, as the child will realise soon enough! (Doesn't always work, but we can but try...)
All this would be much less hassle if people weren't bitter and twisted or just plain not right in the head! lol
Not sure if the money does I didn't spend a massive amount, used a legal advisor at a local solicitors. Likewise, I think it is unfair that those with money seem to come out better than those without - but I guess the Legal Aid changes have a lot to do with that.
Sounds like you've done pretty well compared to many - hopefully the kids will realise who is doing them right, they aren't stupid
I am told that being a consistent good parent is key, as the child will realise soon enough! (Doesn't always work, but we can but try...)All this would be much less hassle if people weren't bitter and twisted or just plain not right in the head! lol
Yes but many women seem to be controlling in these situations and its not like I cheated or left her!
Took a well priced barrister to court on a day rate, her family spend money on houses, designer clothes and expensive holidays but my
ex got very little legal advice only in the first and last month did she engage a solicitor (she ceased her relationship with her first one due to lying to them!). She and her family slagged her off and mocked her in her own office ultimately stating they would no longer respond to her as she was not a solicitor!
She only got a solicitor as I stopped her family collecting the children from school really and then she got the court summons.
This was from a large southwest firm I have only dealt with on a work front, their family team is a shower. The lady assigned does 3 days a week.
Her associate solicitor from the same rocked up to court almost late and didn't have a copy of the filing (my barrister said she was a reasonable solicitor).
Got shared care my ex stuck the waterworks on a claimed it was me controlling her life!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Saturday 18th April 16:04
Perhaps these detailed narratives act as a form of therapy for you, and if so, OK I suppose. Litigating about your ex's family collecting children from school doesn't sound like the most reasonable thing a person could do, but, hey. I wonder why the alleged incompetence of your ex's lawyers bothers you so much.
Seriously: disputes, especially court disputes rarely if ever bring any of the following
1. closure
2. revenge
3. vindication
4. mental equilibrium
5. happiness
I say that as someone who does disputes for a living. I spend a lot of time encouraging people away from disputes. There are reasons why I do that, and I've indicated some of them above.
Seriously: disputes, especially court disputes rarely if ever bring any of the following
1. closure
2. revenge
3. vindication
4. mental equilibrium
5. happiness
I say that as someone who does disputes for a living. I spend a lot of time encouraging people away from disputes. There are reasons why I do that, and I've indicated some of them above.
Breadvan72 said:
I spend a lot of time encouraging people away from disputes. There are reasons why I do that, and I've indicated some of them above.
I have a friend who has spent a phenomenal amount of money so far in an attempt to counter her (Barrister) ex's litigation, and her advice to me in all this has been to strongly recommend that the person I'm helping seeks agreement without needing to go through the pain and cost and disruption of FF etc. To that end we've tried to word Position Statements positively and with a look to a stable future, and not pick things to fight about, relying on the information/evidence available to speak for itself, but it is very stressful when the other side is coming across as more interested in vindictive claims and falsehoods, dragging everything through the mud instead of seeking a shared care resolution or actually being a good parent!
I think it's easier when both parties are reasonable, but I suppose those people don't ever need to go through the courts in the first place!
I don't know how you do your job TBH - the negativity and dealing with the nonsense gets to me!
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Saturday 18th April 19:03
Breadvan72 said:
Perhaps these detailed narratives act as a form of therapy for you, and if so, OK I suppose. Litigating about your ex's family collecting children from school doesn't sound like the most reasonable thing a person could do, but, hey. I wonder why the alleged incompetence of your ex's lawyers bothers you so much.
Seriously: disputes, especially court disputes rarely if ever bring any of the following
1. closure
2. revenge
3. vindication
4. mental equilibrium
5. happiness
I say that as someone who does disputes for a living. I spend a lot of time encouraging people away from disputes. There are reasons why I do that, and I've indicated some of them above.
It was about stopping her controlling the children and me getting consistent access, she all the agreed access at Christmas at the last minute. Which ruined my Xmas taking my children away and attacking my eldest. Seriously: disputes, especially court disputes rarely if ever bring any of the following
1. closure
2. revenge
3. vindication
4. mental equilibrium
5. happiness
I say that as someone who does disputes for a living. I spend a lot of time encouraging people away from disputes. There are reasons why I do that, and I've indicated some of them above.
This is not a vendetta if was I could have spilled the beans on her activities, like when she went into my accounts and did things online never reported it to the police.
Truth is she lies all the time she keeps breaching lock down and nhs staff rules takes sick days to go away or to the beach it’s a matter of time before she is caught, that’s not including the benefit fraud she and her mum have committed.
None of that has every been reported.
I stopped he mum partly to leverage her but also she crossed my mums name off the parental agreement my solicitor sent her. She also tried to stop my family seeing the children.
I deal with contract negotiations, disputes and arbitration for a living so I know what it’s about.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Saturday 18th April 20:33
Your every post on the subject of your divorce shows that you lack insight into the harm that it is doing to your mental health and possibly the health of your children. Any outsider reading your posts can see that you are possibly just as blameworthy as the ex that you are obsessed by. You may think that you are being the reasonable one but you really aren't.
You will not listen when I say this, but you need to step back from the antagonism. You need to put your children first. Trying always to win against you ex, trying always to feel that you are in the right, have taken your focus off what should be your first and only priority which is the welfare of your children. They did not choose you and your ex as their parents. They did not choose for you and your ex to be in dispute. Put them first.
You will not listen when I say this, but you need to step back from the antagonism. You need to put your children first. Trying always to win against you ex, trying always to feel that you are in the right, have taken your focus off what should be your first and only priority which is the welfare of your children. They did not choose you and your ex as their parents. They did not choose for you and your ex to be in dispute. Put them first.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff