# Assessing the wishes of the child in regard to contact with a parent undermines those wishes



## grahamg (Nov 25, 2022)

I am told there are two opposing views to consider in relation to children's rights, including the right for the child to be heard and taken seriously in disputes over contact with one or other of their parents.

The first argument comes from Professor Akira Morita, and was presented at a world congress on children and young people twenty odd year ago, (I think these links show the experience and qualifications of the man):
https://eventos.fct.unl.pt/technologyassessmentandsimulation/people/akira-morita

More up to date info here:
https://www.jst.go.jp/ristex/stipolicy/en/program/profile01.html

The statement I recall professor Morita made at the world congress on the child in 2000 went something along the lines of: "What the child needs is the relationship with their parent, rather than some notion of children's rights".

Hence my thread title is intended to focus attention on whether our UK family courts systems requiring court officials to determine what the wishes of the child might be in relation to one of their parents, and the oft repeated statement: "Contact is the child's right, not the parent's right" undermines the very relationship between the parent and the child.

This is because who amongst us thought when growing up "I am going to decide who my parent is", or "I am going to have to decide who my parent is"?

I am challenged by thoughts as to what I expect our family courts to do when presented with a child resisting contact with one of their parents, (one they consider "old enough, and mature enough to make decisions for themselves", two aspects they are said to bear in mind).  

However, the thread topic is supposed to be whether Professor Morita is correct in his assertion that what the child needs is the relationship with the parent, rather than some notion of children's rights being applied to them in contact cases?

I'm now going to deliberately present you with a circular argument, (and see where this takes us):
_"The child needs the relationship with the parent, as the relationship with the parent is what is good for the child"_

For the sakes of this argument here, please avoid all references to child abuse cases would you, where in UK law a different legal standard is applied, (and it is the same standard used even when the two parents are still together, and called the "harm standard", where all kinds of investigations by the authorities are obviously fully justified).


----------



## grahamg (Nov 25, 2022)

Some back ground reading that may help everyone, (apologies as its rather long):
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/abandoning-children-to-their-rights

Quote:
"The United Nations adopted an impressive “Declaration on the Rights of the Child” in 1959."
(Break)

"..., the 1989 statement also charts what the UN calls “new territory” by moving beyond protection rights to choice rights for children. According to a current UN publications catalogue, the CRC (Childrens Rights Convention) offers a “new concept of separate rights for children with the Government accepting the responsibility of protecting the child from the power of parents.” One proponent, Michael Jupp, says “the Convention recognizes that children should have rights identical to adults’.” Thus the CRC takes a “quantum leap” beyond the 1959 Declaration by adopting and promoting “an autonomous view” of children’s rights that is “more based on choice than needs” of children."

(Break)
"Among the fundamental axioms of American law is the doctrine that the parent-child relationship antedates the state just as natural individual rights antedate the state in the Constitution’s political theory. Parents are not trustees who receive authority to rear their children through delegations of state power over children. Rather, as the Supreme Court held in distinguishing biological parents from foster parents, the natural parent-child tie is “a relationship having origins entirely apart from the power of the State,” while a foster placement arranged by state agents “has its source in state law and contractual arrangements.” Because of this principle, the Court has said, “the child is not the mere creature of the State,” and the social structure-partly in order to limit state power-presupposes a system of family units, not just a mass of isolated individuals who all stand in the same relationship to the state."

Agents of the state in America have thus never had authority to intervene in the child-parent relationship until they establish jurisdiction through formal proceedings: divorce-related custody issues; adoptions; findings of serious parental unfitness, neglect, abuse, or abandonment; or child misbehavior severe enough to require state intervention. Article Nine of the CRC, however, provides that children may be separated from parents when “such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.” Articles Three and Eighteen add that while “parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” the “best interests of the child will be [parents’] basic concern.”

Does this mean that any parental care that falls short of serving the child’s “best interests” is sufficiently flawed to trigger intervention? Could a child trigger state intervention merely by requesting state review of the “reasonableness” of parental conduct compared to the child’s view of his or her best interests?"

(Break)
"The CRC’s developmental language reflects perfectly desirable psychological aspirations that do not (and, like hopeful but unenforceable expressions of a child’s “right” to be loved, cannot) mirror legal reality."

(Break)
"Article Sixteen establishes child privacy rights: “No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, home, or correspondence.” This limited context confers little meaning on “privacy,” an unfortunate omission in light of the growing complexity of privacy laws..... this article confers “the right to be let alone,” Justice Brandeis’ 1934 phrase that now captures the general idea of autonomous personhood."
(Break)
"This broad sense of privacy makes no explicit allowance for the role of parents, who are unavoidably involved in a child’s private world. In most contexts one could assume that a “right” to privacy runs only against the state. However, the CRC’s apparent intent to give “government the responsibility of protecting the child from the power of parents” naturally raises the question whether the CRC’s interest in privacy rights for children also intends to limit parental prerogatives."

(Break)
"But some adults who want to liberate children are not as motivated by children’s interests as by their own interests-some ideological and some that merely serve adult convenience. Adults face a conflict of interest in thinking about autonomy for children. When they disengage themselves from the arduous task of rearing and teaching children in the name of increasing children’s autonomy, adults’ actual-even if not fully conscious-purpose may be to increase their own autonomy by freeing themselves from the burdens of providing meaningful care. Even worse, some pro-child autonomy claims are merely a smokescreen intended to protect the interests of adults who profit from such claims while indirectly exploiting the actual interests of children.

In addition, a growing clamor over legal rights for children may create the illusion that parents, teachers, and other adults owe children only what the law demands of them. The increased appearance of autonomy for children becomes then essentially the default position that results from reducing our sense of adult responsibility for children. The assertion that untutored, unguided children already enjoy all the autonomy they need may relieve adults of demanding obligations, but that assertion is ultimately a profound form of child neglect. Children cannot raise themselves."

"Another major concern with the autonomy-based approach of the CRC is its failure to distinguish between state paternalism and parental paternalism. By assuming a direct relationship between children and the state, the CRC could have the effect of reducing parental commitments to childrearing while concurrently increasing the dependency of children on the state. To the extent that governmental policies foster noncommittal attitudes on the part of parents, either because parents believe they have no right to give direction to their children or because they fear that in giving them direction they might meet state-supported resistance, both the children of those families and the larger society will suffer.

For most parents, the “rights” of parenthood leave them no alternative but an assumption of parental responsibility, because that responsibility, both by nature and by law, can be assumed by no one else until the parent has failed. But when state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will inevitably undermine the assumption of parental responsibility. To undermine parental initiative is not wise when society has found no realistic alternative to it. Indeed, it may be that children have a right to policies that require parental accountability. Yet contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children. The CRC’s attitude only exacerbates this tendency.

There is great irony in the observation of Akira Morita, a Japanese legal scholar who has studied the CRC’s drafting process. Professor Morita found that after a decade of leisurely discussion, the CRC’s hastily composed 1988 draft-particularly its emphasis on child autonomy-resulted from “a hurried compilation of the then current discussions as heavily impacted by the growing momentum toward the end of the Cold War. In other words, the ‘civil rights and liberties of the child’ was a child of the ideological victory of the United States over the USSR.” In his view, the impending collapse of total state paternalism in the Soviet Union helped convince the drafters that they should accept the anti-paternalistic ideology of the CRC."


----------



## grahamg (Nov 26, 2022)

Can someone venture an opinion about the article posted immediately above this post?

I'm my humble opinion the guy has encapsulated arguments I've tried to make literally hundreds of times, (if not thousands!), and all I seemed to find when putting forth my views was folks willing to dismiss my arguments.

I need not have bothered as obviously someone got there before me, researched the issues and understood matters far better than I could have done, and laid it all out for all to read, (with no one as yet arguing on this forum). I'm completely unaware whether refutations of the views articulated in "Abandoning children to their rights" have been made elsewhere, (but will try to look for some!).


----------



## grahamg (Nov 26, 2022)

Here is a refutation of the main argument put forward Jonathan Hafen in the book "Abandoning children to their rights":
https://academic.oup.com/book/32625/chapter-abstract/270510194?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Quote:
"Thus, the CRC is not _abandoning children to their rights_, as Hafen and Hafen argue in their article, 'Abandoning Children to their Autonomy" (NB to avoid confusion as to the name of the article is Abandoning Children to their Autonomy", whilst the book is entitled "Abandoning Children to their Right").

2nd quote:
"Law is enslaved to child welfare and child development experts. The agitation of a particular identity, or a categorization based upon alleged ‘natural’ characteristics, has been carried out in the context of gender, race, ****** orientation, etc., to expose the unnaturalness and difference within that category. In an attempt to explore a similar critique of the child, this chapter recruits a Foucauldian critique of power and truth/knowledge to make the argument that the category ‘child’ is not based upon a set of natural and fundamental characteristics shared by those aged birth to eighteen — the operating presumption of the child in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). If there is no universal ‘child’, on what ground do the politics behind and the power relations dependent upon the fictitious universal child in the CRC stand? To examine the CRC's child, one must start by exploring the shape of rights given to the child. When these rights diverge from the rights given (or emphasized) to all other humans, one must look at the justification that is offered."

In case you were wondering what a "Foucauldian critique" might be here is an explanation:


----------



## grahamg (Nov 26, 2022)

Here is some more views expressed by Jonathan Hafen in his article:
http://familywatch.org/fwi/documents/HAFENHRCPaperCRCDeliveryVersion102814.pdf

Abandoning Children to Their Autonomy: Children’s Needs and the Rights of Parents in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Professor Bruce C. Hafen, Brigham Young University Geneva, Switzerland, September 12, 2014

Quote:
Parents as Children’s Primary Caretakers

"After reviewing a collection of the CRC committee’s observations and comments, my overall impression is that the committee is interpreting the CRC in ways that mostly seem to shift decision making about what is best for children (a) away from a child’s own country and (b) away from a child’s own parents, in favor of policy priorities adopted by the CRC committee. So, as an American parent, I hear the CRC and its committee mostly telling me that my children should follow the committee’s policy preferences rather than the reasonably differing preferences of my own courts and legislators, and certainly rather than my own judgment—because one of the CRC’s stated aims is to protect my children from my authority and power. Rather than offering demonstrable benefits for children, this shift essentially replaces one form of state paternalism for another. By its tone as well as many of its provisions and interpretations, the CRC committee also removes important incentives for parents to care about their children. This new form of paternalism may hurt children more than it helps them."

"Years of discussion about children’s rights have shown that the most important issue is who gets to decide what a given child may or may not do. Because of children’s inherent dependency, even though we all want them to become more independent as they grow and mature, someone other than the children themselves generally needs to decide what is best for them—subject, of course, to reasonable regulation. Should those primary decision makers be their parents, agents of their country, or the agents of an international organization? Which of these three options is best for children and for the future stability of the democratic societies that today’s children will become?"


----------



## Pepper (Nov 26, 2022)

I find your own thoughts are much more interesting and fun to read, graham.  Can't do reading assignments anymore, left that behind in college, oh so many years ago.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 26, 2022)

More views opposing Jonathan Hafen's views:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...onal-privacy/CE638CA3B4AB62AFDE20F35B0E96DCCB

Quote:
"The fourth principle is that children must participate meaningfully in decision-making about their lives. In Part 4, I respond to concerns expressed by those uneasy with the idea of children as rights-bearers, that acknowledging children's decisional privacy rights will undermine parental authority and incite conflict between children and their parents, thereby justifying state intervention in the family."

(Break)
"The theory of decisional privacy that I develop in this paper is concerned with the _choices_ that the child can make in relation to his or her possessions (property rights) and his or her body (rights over the person), consistent with the child's evolving capacities and guided by the child's parents. The child's ability to make such choices enables the child to answer the ‘practical question' of how he or she would like to live and what kind of person he or she would like to be. This question can only be answered if privacy is recognised as a distinct right or interest with unique value."

(Break)
"The theory of children's decisional privacy developed in this paper represents a radical departure from the dominant welfare model, which requires that parents act in the best interests of their children, and state intervention is justified by parents’ failure to so act. The ‘dark side’ of the welfare approach, according to Eekelaar, is that the obligation to promote and protect children's best interests also involves adults exercising the power to determine the content and nature of those interests.  A children's rights approach, by contrast, imposes an obligation on parents to guide and enable children to gradually exercise and enjoy their rights independently, and also requires that parental rights and responsibilities, where exercised appropriately, be respected. The theory of children's decisional privacy, then, does indeed undermine the traditional family unit, insofar as it demands that children are not only seen, but also heard and listened to. It reconfigures the relationships between children and their parents, children and the state, and parents and the state. However, it does not advocate that children can, and must, make all decisions in all matters affecting them.

(Break)
"A children's rights approach to decisional privacy accords with a ‘situational’ perspective on shared decision-making, to the extent that it ‘recognises children's right to have a say, without necessarily having full control over decision-making’. However, a children's rights approach proposes that the protective role of the child's parents and practice professionals cannot justify restricting or interfering with a child's autonomy when the child is found to have reached a level of maturity to understand and appreciate the consequences of his or her decision. The child's views must be determinative of the child's best interests in these circumstances. For adults to engage in ‘best interest-based intervention’ and effectively override the child's views of his or her best interests would be neither legally nor morally justifiable.

The evolving capacities principle under Article 5 of the UNCRC may therefore challenge parents’ perceptions of their ‘proper’ role. It may even expose parental reluctance to cede their authority on matters where they feel that they know what is ‘best’ for – and know better than – their child. But as Tobin has observed, ‘ltimately the principle of evolving capacities demands that parents concede that they are not always the sole arbiters of a child's best interests’."

(Break)
A children's rights approach to decisional privacy also encourages judges to use the UNCRC as an express legal and normative framework to guide decision-making. The UNCRC has been ratified by the UK but has been incorporated expressly by statute by Scotland only. Nonetheless, this international convention has been recognised as relevant for the purposes of resolving ambiguity in domestic legislation; guiding the development of the common law; and also to ‘proclaim, re-affirm or elucidate … the nature and scope of those fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 via the Human Rights Act 1998.

 A recent study by Gilmore of the use of the UNCRC in family law cases in England and Wales found that Article 12 was most frequently cited; and that it was often used by judges and counsel to emphasise the importance of taking into account the child's wishes and feelings, and occasionally as a benchmark against which to assess domestic processes for obtaining children's views."


----------



## grahamg (Nov 26, 2022)

Pepper said:


> I find your own thoughts are much more interesting and fun to read, graham.  Can't do reading assignments anymore, left that behind in college, oh so many years ago.


Someone will have a go I'm sure, as all I've tried to argue, both the views for and against, is laid out for everyone above!


----------



## grahamg (Nov 26, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Here is a refutation of the main argument put forward Jonathan Hafen in the book "Abandoning children to their rights":
> https://academic.oup.com/book/32625/chapter-abstract/270510194?redirectedFrom=fulltext
> In case you were wondering what a "Foucauldian critique" might be here is an explanation:


Wow, the guy trying to explain what "Foucauldian critique" is supposed to be really has folks like me tied in knots! (And I'm the one who "speaks in riddles" I'm told).


----------



## Remy (Nov 27, 2022)

I can't read all through that myself but a couple of thoughts. Can the courts ever be 100% that the right decision was made. Will the child be honest or not about what they want, feel or are experiencing. I was so afraid and programed by my own mother, I could never have told or understood the truth at a young age. My bio father never advocated to try and see us kids after my mother cut the contact with him. This was probably within a year of marrying my stepfather. 

My mother cut the contact because he told her something disparaging, I said to him about my mother. Instead of showing concern for his child, he just used my words to try and get back at my mother, never thinking of the abuse it would unleash on me and it did. Kids are helpless pawns. What they think and realize when they become adults can take years to realize. It doesn't all fall into place because they become 18.


----------



## Knight (Nov 27, 2022)

Far to much to read. So I'll reduce it down to this in your 1st. post.

Quote
"What the child needs is the relationship with their parent,"

IMO at some point a child should have the right to decide with whom they want to live with. It could be with both or one or the other. 

Key is the relationship. A well adjusted couple that a divorce was the best solution. For a child experiencing that as a comfortable way to enjoy both parents more than likely would fit the both category. Mal adjusted dysfunctional, abusive parenting by one or the other doesn't go unnoticed by a child.  
A Case by case assessment with facts should be the criteria used when a child is asked their preference.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 28, 2022)

Remy said:


> I can't read all through that myself but a couple of thoughts. Can the courts ever be 100% that the right decision was made. Will the child be honest or not about what they want, feel or are experiencing. I was so afraid and programed by my own mother, I could never have told or understood the truth at a young age. My bio father never advocated to try and see us kids after my mother cut the contact with him. This was probably within a year of marrying my stepfather.
> My mother cut the contact because he told her something disparaging, I said to him about my mother. Instead of showing concern for his child, he just used my words to try and get back at my mother, never thinking of the abuse it would unleash on me and it did. Kids are helpless pawns. What they think and realize when they become adults can take years to realize. It doesn't all fall into place because they become 18.


Your post is helpful to me, (as previously the case on other similar threads).
My own posts 4 + 7 above give opposing arguments to those put forward by Jonathan Hafen, (the views by a US law professor I find utterly convincing, and published in 1995).

The questions I've tried to ask myself concerning the refutation of Jonathan Hafen's assertion, (I.e. we are, or the system is "Abandoning children to their Autonomy"), is what motivates those wishing to demolish his arguments?. Oddly enough, as its mentioned in the refutation, this is a "Foucauldian critique" question.

Now why I find your posts so helpful is this, if the refutation of Hafens view has prevailed, then in my humble opinion any parent approaching the family courts is lead to behave in the way you've described your father behaving.

I'll try to explain this further in another post, as I'm still making my mind up as to what it means.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 28, 2022)

Knight said:


> Far to much to read. So I'll reduce it down to this in your 1st. post.
> Quote
> "What the child needs is the relationship with their parent,"
> IMO at some point a child should have the right to decide with whom they want to live with. It could be with both or one or the other.
> ...


Do you mind if I leave my response to your posts with a request that you try to address the arguments put forward by the US law professor Jonathan Hafen?

Long as it is, we can probably agree those refuting the case he put forward that we have "Abandoned children to their Autonomy" have won the day, and this means or should mean the system is the better for ignoring Hafens warnings. I can't agree that the system is better, but no one will listen to me, just as it would appear a law professor has been ignored ultimately, but it would be nice to know where you find yourself in disagreement with him.


----------



## Knight (Nov 28, 2022)

If I understand the context of your post #7 I think my post pretty much aligns with the idea that children should have a right to decide. 

What is your opinion?


----------



## grahamg (Nov 28, 2022)

Knight said:


> If I understand the context of your post #7 I think my post pretty much aligns with the idea that children should have a right to decide.
> What is your opinion?


Well, as you know I'm in agreement with professor Jonathan Hafen, and trying to ponder why his views have been refuted.

I think its very useful to have some analysis and argument that is well made, (it would be odd if a man who is a professor of law wasn't capable of making a strongly structured and logical argument, given his position wouldn't it).

So what are the points of difference between what he has stated and those refuting what he had to say?

It appears to me we're expected to accept a "new reality", (that's the main argument used against him I think?).

Hafen mentions  "Love" (albeit obliquely), quote:
_"The CRC’s (Childrens Rights Convention's) developmental language reflects perfectly desirable psychological aspirations that do not (and, like hopeful but unenforceable expressions of a child’s “right” to be loved, cannot) mirror legal reality."_

Then there is this argument that I think gets to the heart of the differences between Hafen and those trying to refute his views, quote:
_"So, as an American parent, I hear the CRC and its committee mostly telling me that my children should follow the committee’s policy preferences rather than the reasonably differing preferences of my own courts and legislators, and certainly rather than my own judgment—because one of the CRC’s stated aims is to protect my children from my authority and power. Rather than offering demonstrable benefits for children, this shift essentially replaces one form of state paternalism for another. By its tone as well as many of its provisions and interpretations, the CRC committee also removes important incentives for parents to care about their children. This new form of paternalism may hurt children more than it helps them."_

The issue for those opposing Hafen therefore is to assert that there has not been policies emanating from the CRC that remove important incentives for parents to care about their children, or if they think Hafen is right and agree that there are fewer incentives for parents to care about their children, then somehow argue why this might be a good thing(?)

You ask about children's wishes, whilst I (and Hafen I think) ask about what effects our family law might have upon children, and their relationships with their parents. 

Are children to think that whatever they might say or do in relation to one or both of their parents may be the subject of scrutiny by someone in authority? Are the parents to conduct their lives as though they must account for themselves at all times, and in a manner that might seem best in the eyes of someone in authority, rather than thinking for themselves what their child needs at any particular time? Are you free to object to something your child might do, if by doing so someone in authority might feel you have not followed what they think it says in the best child rearing policy booklet available?


----------



## grahamg (Nov 28, 2022)

Remy said:


> I can't read all through that myself but a couple of thoughts. Can the courts ever be 100% that the right decision was made. Will the child be honest or not about what they want, feel or are experiencing. I was so afraid and programed by my own mother, I could never have told or understood the truth at a young age. My bio father never advocated to try and see us kids after my mother cut the contact with him. This was probably within a year of marrying my stepfather.
> My mother cut the contact because he told her something disparaging, I said to him about my mother. Instead of showing concern for his child, he just used my words to try and get back at my mother, never thinking of the abuse it would unleash on me and it did. Kids are helpless pawns. What they think and realize when they become adults can take years to realize. It doesn't all fall into place because they become 18.


Whilst not really the situation you faced (because you were given no choice), my question is are children in general taught it is okay to hate a parent who has loved you?

US family courts in some states are said to ask the question, "Which parent when given custody of the child is most likely to promote a loving relationship between the child and the other parent"?

On some occasions they are said to make orders and change the parent who has custody of the child based largely upon this one criteria I believe.

I suggested earlier that your father's negative behaviour is maybe the only sensible way to treat your own child, dreadful as it sounds, because those making judgements about you as a parent assume us all to be guilty of some kind of harm to our children, and all parents are forced to play the game by their rules. 

On fathers rights forums in the UK dads are routinely told to state they abused their children even when they did not, if this gets them over the hurdle of satisfying what those court appointed officials believe you may have done, and by denying it, even truthfully you will be assumed to be refusing to own up and admit fault, or show contrition. If this is indeed the way the system works, then just imagine how much else ou have to do as a parent/father simply to be seen as okay as a dad/parent.


----------



## Knight (Nov 28, 2022)

Seemed easy enough to me to answer the question of  "What is your opinion?" 
You reply with a ton of words boiling down to this.

You ask about children's wishes, whilst I (and Hafen I think) ask about what effects our family law might have upon children, and their relationships with their parents.

I wasn't asking about children's wishes I was responding to what I thought their rights should be. 

The effects of family law I think we can agree are not 100% perfect but not creating some structure as a guideline IMO would be detrimental to children. 

So "What is your opinion?"  Do you think establishing a way to protect children is right or wrong.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 28, 2022)

Well, looking back to when my parents split up in the mid 60s, I was given the choice of which parent I wanted to live with.   I chose to stay with my mother, although I think she was hoping that I would go.   I would have felt like I would be abandoning her, but my life would have been decidedly different with my Dad.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 29, 2022)

Knight said:


> Seemed easy enough to me to answer the question of  "What is your opinion?"
> You reply with a ton of words boiling down to this.
> You ask about children's wishes, whilst I (and Hafen I think) ask about what effects our family law might have upon children, and their relationships with their parents.
> I wasn't asking about children's wishes I was responding to what I thought their rights should be.
> ...


Although it may be of some interest to you what I may think, (and I'd suggest my saying "I find myself in almost total agreement with the law professor Jonathan Hafen" is doing just that), its fair enough isn't it for this thread to be a discussion about what experts might think, and why they disagree(?).

"Protecting children", (or using those words), indicates in the UK at least, that you're referring to the "harm standard",(a legal standard applied to all families, intact or otherwise, as its called here). 

I'm not attempting to challenge that legal standard at all, and Jonathan Hafen refers to this aspect of the law and the way the CRC, (Children's Rights Convention), goes way beyond that standard, and in doing so he believes it may actually do harm to children when its applied.

That's the " nub of it".

I read in the UK newspapers almost every week stories about how poorly children seem to be coping here, and how much worse whatever problem it might be appears to be getting. Hafen predicted in 1995, (and earlier), that changes being introduced may bring harm to children, and now we appear to be seeing it. 

What he said may have absolutely nothing to do with this reported deterioration in the way children are progressing here, but if no one discusses what he said, "Because the world has moved on", (as Hafens detractors would have it), then how can anyone begin to improve the situation if he was right?

Apologies for long post again, and any questions you raised you don't feel I answered well enough.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 29, 2022)

Nathan said:


> Well, looking back to when my parents split up in the mid 60s, I was given the choice of which parent I wanted to live with.   I chose to stay with my mother, although I think she was hoping that I would go.   I would have felt like I would be abandoning her, but my life would have been decidedly different with my Dad.


Its interesting that you were given the choice as to which parent you should live with when they split up, even in the 1960s.

Both your parents must have been considered fit to care for you, and both obviously willing to do so, (or at least not willing to say otherwise publicly).

My argument, backed up I believe by what I've read of Professor Jonathan Hafens views, is that the decision as to where you lived, once settled, shouldn't have hung over you or be readdressed unless something has gone badly wrong. You may agree that it would have been a bad thing to have your parents pulling in opposite directions as to where you should live, and constantly raising the issue(?).

I believe continually putting the children's views at the fore front of any discussions, particularly discussions initiated by court appointed officials, is harmful in itself, and ultimately has the effect of denying the child a loving relationship with at least one parent.

In my post above this one I referred to UK newspaper reports about a deterioration in the way children are professing here. Yesterday "The Times" newspaper carried a story about a sharp increase in the numbers of children being prescribed drugs because they can't sleep properly. It didn't go into the story too deeply as far as I can recall, nor suggest "trouble at home", (as it used to be called), being in any way involved. However asking the children what they might think is the matter may not be the way forward, as I'd think it most likely stability around them is what all children will need, and as Hafen does say, this should guide policy makers everywhere, (should they be listening).


----------



## Lavinia (Nov 29, 2022)

Sorry, grahamg...I'm not going to bother reading such long posts. I'll just give my response to the headline. If one parent is more hot on discipline, while the other parent is more relaxed, then it's understandable if the child prefers not to spend time with the former. However, this is one case where the wishes of the child should be over-ruled.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 29, 2022)

Lavinia said:


> Sorry, grahamg...I'm not going to bother reading such long posts. I'll just give my response to the headline. If one parent is more hot on discipline, while the other parent is more relaxed, then it's understandable if the child prefers not to spend time with the former. However, this is one case where the wishes of the child should be over-ruled.


Dont worry, the thread topic is slowly getting a airing isn't it, and your point is well made too!


----------



## grahamg (Nov 29, 2022)

Lets just look again at Jonathan Hafen's comments, as detailed in the link given in the second post above:
https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/abandoning-children-to-their-rights

Quote:
"In 1989 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, without a vote, a new Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Within a year, 130 nations had accepted the CRC, and some 175 now have. The United States has not yet ratified it, but is now considering doing so.

As approvals of international human rights treaties go, this is such blinding speed that the CRC’s widespread acceptance seems surprisingly uncritical-especially for a Declaration that includes an unprecedented approach to the autonomy of children. Although it restates many time-honored UN themes about children, the new CRC would also arguably alter a number of American laws affecting families and children.

That the U.S. is not yet among the adopting nations is a curious fact, since Americans took the lead in developing the CRC’s unique provisions for child autonomy. American sluggishness might be explained by a traditional reluctance to adopt human rights treaties."

(Break)
"Not until the early 1970s did the first Kiddie Libbers appear, arguing for the first time that children “are autonomous individuals, entitled to the same rights as adults.” This assertion relied not on new evidence that young people have adult-like capacity, but on the liberationist ideology that kids are people too. This ideology drew support from Supreme Court opinions in the 1960s that recognized rudimentary constitutional rights for public school students and other children.

But child autonomy claims have not really carried the day in American law."

(Break)
"The significance of the CRC’s emphasis on child autonomy is best understood by considering the distinction between rights of protection and rights of choice for children. Protection rights, which do not depend on any minimum level of capacity, include such safeguards as the right to property, rights to physical care and security, and the right not to be imprisoned without procedural due process. Recently increased procedural protections for American children in juvenile courts, schools, and other settings are typically designed not to increase children’s personal choices but to protect children against the abuses of unchecked adult discretion. Children’s relative lack of adult capacity explains the need for such protections."

(Break)
"The CRC also clearly “acknowledges the primary role of the family and parents in the care and protection of children, and the obligation of the State to help them in carrying out these duties.” Indeed, the CRC’s Preamble describes the family “as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for [children’s] growth and well-being.” To this end, Article Five affirms “the responsibilities, rights, and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom.” *Article Five, however, subtly but significantly limits parental rights to those that are “consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.” Parental rights are thus limited to direction “of the [children’s] rights recognized in the Convention.”"*

(Break)
 Article Nine of the CRC, however, provides that children may be separated from parents when “such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child.” Articles Three and Eighteen add that while “parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,” the “best interests of the child will be [parents’] basic concern.”

Does this mean that any parental care that falls short of serving the child’s “best interests” is sufficiently flawed to trigger intervention? Could a child trigger state intervention merely by requesting state review of the “reasonableness” of parental conduct compared to the child’s view of his or her best interests?

Some American proponents of the CRC argue that its “best interest” language applies only in a secondary way to child placement; that is, only when custody is already in issue or neglect has been established does a judge unavoidably face placement options. Others, however, see the CRC’s best interests standard as a primary jurisdictional test. Two Australian lawyers, Margaret Otlowski and Martin Tsamenyi, believe that under the CRC parental rights are “subject to external scrutiny” and “may be overridden” when “the parents are _not acting in the best interests of the child _, or where the parents are unreasonably attempting to impose their views upon mature minors who have the capacity to make their own decisions.”

This interpretation is consistent with the CRC’s apparent intent to place children and parents on the same plane as co-autonomous persons in their relationship with the state."


----------



## Knight (Nov 29, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Apologies for long post again, and any questions you raised you don't feel I answered well enough.


 Hafen predicted in 1995, (and earlier), that changes being introduced may bring harm to children, and now we appear to be seeing it. 

So a prediction that "may" bring harm appear to be happening.  

What changes did the expert predict?


----------



## grahamg (Nov 29, 2022)

Knight said:


> Hafen predicted in 1995, (and earlier), that changes being introduced may bring harm to children, and now we appear to be seeing it.
> So a prediction that "may" bring harm appear to be happening.
> What changes did the expert predict?


You're being a bit unfair here, because anyone who can read knows professor Jonathan Hafen has predicted western family law systems are "Abandoning Children to their Autonomy", (its the title of his book after all), and he has stated the following:

"...., _when state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will inevitably undermine the assumption of parental responsibility. To undermine parental initiative is not wise when society has found no realistic alternative to it. Indeed, it may be that children have a right to policies that require parental accountability. Yet contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children. The CRC’s attitude only exacerbates this tendency."_ 

Doesnt that change strike you as being undesirable?


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 29, 2022)

IMO, the family court and foster care systems rely way too heavily on "experts". Psychology in particular doesn't have accurate measurements or even precise evidence; it's all hypotheses and guess-work based on observation. Why _that_ is valued over human instinct is beyond me.

I instinctively knew Paxton was being emotionally abused, and I phoned it in. No one believed me. They didn't even _ask_ him. When his mother began physically abusing him, I sent them photos. Almost a year later, Paxton was finally taken from that... his mother. That action was based on a recent recording and some xrays. Meanwhile, he has suffered abuse from his own mother for nearly a year. I spotted it within 2 months. 

But Instincts have no value. They're irrelevant where it comes to what authorities decide for children, no matter how long or how close your relationship is or was. Guesswork, experimentation, and the ideas of childless philosophers carry far more weight in these decisions.


----------



## Knight (Nov 29, 2022)

grahamg said:


> You're being a bit unfair here, because anyone who can read knows professor Jonathan Hafen has predicted western family law systems are "Abandoning Children to their Autonomy", (its the title of his book after all), and he has stated the following:
> 
> "...., _when state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will inevitably undermine the assumption of parental responsibility. To undermine parental initiative is not wise when society has found no realistic alternative to it. Indeed, it may be that children have a right to policies that require parental accountability. Yet contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children. The CRC’s attitude only exacerbates this tendency."_
> 
> Doesnt that change strike you as being undesirable?


It's in the wording. Big difference between speculation 

""...., "_when"  state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will inevitably undermine the assumption of parental responsibility." 

And committing to a statement that needs research, documentation so facts can be presented to change what "may" not be working. I emphasize "may" because  facts have to be generated.  Remove the words "WHEN" & "INEVITABLY"  to read like this._

""_ state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will undermine the assumption of parental responsibility." _

  Speculation is great because it isn't stated as fact.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 29, 2022)

Knight said:


> Speculation is great because it isn't stated as fact.


However, it's sometimes used as though it is a fact. And that depends on how influential or well-known the speculator is, not necessarily what his/her "track record" looks like. A few "great successes" easily takes attention off dozens of bad results and utter failures.


----------



## Knight (Nov 29, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> However, it's sometimes used as though it is a fact. And that depends on how influential or well-known the speculator is, not necessarily what his/her "track record" looks like. A few "great successes" easily takes attention off dozens of bad results and utter failures.


Thus the thought the system isn't 100% perfect. I asked graham if he thought children have rights to chose which parent to live with.  

A simple yes or no would have worked.   I don't know of statistics showing successes & failures. Only personal experiences good or bad show up in posts. As a topic using articles & speculation by  Jonathan Hafen, published in 1995). & what might be different now hasn't gone anywhere.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 29, 2022)

Knight said:


> It's in the wording. Big difference between speculation
> ""...., "_when"  state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will inevitably undermine the assumption of parental responsibility."
> And committing to a statement that needs research, documentation so facts can be presented to change what "may" not be working. I emphasize "may" because  facts have to be generated.  Remove the words "WHEN" & "INEVITABLY"  to read like this._
> ""_ state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will undermine the assumption of parental responsibility." _
> Speculation is great because it isn't stated as fact.


Can you call a book "Abandoning children to their Rights" and at the same time not be making a statement of any kind?

You cant really mean that Jonathan Hafen raised the issues in this statement, quote: "_when state-enforced policies undermine traditional parental rights, those same policies will inevitably undermine the assumption of parental responsibility.",...., _without meaning that it is happening in their view, (and they state it is already happening, quote: "_contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children."_).

Why would anyone choose to refute a book making no assertions of any kind(?).

Putting all that one side though, and if you like assume Jonathan Hafen has made statements worth refuting, is the family law system undermining parents to a degree that cannot be justified and doing real harm?


----------



## grahamg (Nov 29, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> IMO, the family court and foster care systems rely way too heavily on "experts". Psychology in particular doesn't have accurate measurements or even precise evidence; it's all hypotheses and guess-work based on observation. Why _that_ is valued over human instinct is beyond me.
> I instinctively knew Paxton was being emotionally abused, and I phoned it in. No one believed me. They didn't even _ask_ him. When his mother began physically abusing him, I sent them photos. Almost a year later, Paxton was finally taken from that... his mother. That action was based on a recent recording and some xrays. Meanwhile, he has suffered abuse from his own mother for nearly a year. I spotted it within 2 months.
> But Instincts have no value. They're irrelevant where it comes to what authorities decide for children, no matter how long or how close your relationship is or was. Guesswork, experimentation, and the ideas of childless philosophers carry far more weight in these decisions.


I like what you have to say about our instincts.

I do think there is "experimentation" going on in family law as you suggest, and even guesswork.

Finally this pesky word "love" comes to my mind, as in who truly loves those children being considered by the family court system, and what does it take for those loving relationships the children does enjoy or has enjoyed, to be protected?


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 29, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I like what you have to say about our instincts.
> 
> I do think there is "experimentation" going on in family law as you suggest, and even guesswork.
> 
> Finally this pesky word "love" comes to my mind, as in who truly loves those children being considered by the family court system, and what does it take for those loving relationships the children does enjoy or has enjoyed, to be protected?


California law encourages contact between children and their beloved relatives, however, Family Court and CPS have never demonstrated any encouragement whatsoever, nor good speed in facilitating contact with anyone besides the mother.

To be honest, I don't know how they get away with it.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 29, 2022)

Knight said:


> Thus the thought the system isn't 100% perfect. I asked graham if he thought children have rights to chose which parent to live with.
> 
> A simple yes or no would have worked.   I don't know of statistics showing successes & failures. Only personal experiences good or bad show up in posts. As a topic using articles & speculation by  Jonathan Hafen, published in 1995). & what might be different now hasn't gone anywhere.


US family courts put an age perimeter on that. They might ask a 5 y/o, but their answer is only used as part of the assessment, not taken at face value. Kids from around age 14 can choose. It varies from state to state, and some states will still make a different decision based on fitness of the parent and/or their home.


----------



## HoneyNut (Nov 29, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Kids from around age 14 can choose.


A sibling of a foster child I had, chose to have no family at all and to live in a children's home instead.  I was surprised she was allowed to choose that, but she'd been in and out of the system for years so I guess she knew what would work best for her.  Though if she could have found a permanent family I'd think that would be better than living in a children's home until aging out of foster care.


----------



## grahamg (Nov 30, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> California law encourages contact between children and their beloved relatives, however, Family Court and CPS have never demonstrated any encouragement whatsoever, nor good speed in facilitating contact with anyone besides the mother.
> To be honest, I don't know how they get away with it.


The broader picture is what Jonathan Hafen is pointing to in his books and articles, (as no doubt are those opposing him, and refuting his assertion that we are "Abandoning children to their Autonomy").

If marriage is so uncertain an institution  (as well all know it is nowadays), then this throws up question marks about parenting, parent-child relationships, as Hafen mentions, and then there are the host of policies we'd probably agree undermine at least one of the parents, and if Hafen is correct leads to quote: "_contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children"!_


----------



## Knight (Nov 30, 2022)

Let's forget for a moment what Hafen has written.

As this pertains to children.

Autonomy is the ability to make your own decisions about what to do rather than being influenced by someone else or told what to do.

What is your opinion? 

Do you believe children should be able to have the right to chose whether they want to live with only one parent or be emancipated?


Do you believe children should never be able to have the right to chose whether they want to live with only one parent or be emancipated?


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 30, 2022)

@grahamg 

"_contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children"!_

I agree. Government agencies and state courts are no less indifferent, or as increasingly indifferent.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 30, 2022)

Knight said:


> Let's forget for a moment what Hafen has written.
> 
> As this pertains to children.
> 
> ...


I went to school with a kid who chose his mom because he felt sorry for her, and another who chose her dad so he wouldn't get angry. They were about 9 or 10, and this was back in the day when courts weren't as intrusive in family affairs. Both of them wound up being raised by their grandparents because things didn't go well. The mom became a barfly and the dad molested his daughter. It's lucky for the kids they had decent grandparents, but neither of them grew into decent adults.

On the other hand, when my former foster son was only 2 1/2, he begged CPS to let him stay with me after the court gave his mother custody. And I'd have been a good dad for him. I'd have taught him to be a decent person. Now he's 4, and he's in his 3rd foster home. It's a really good one, and I'm happy for him, but the poor little man is asking CPS to let him visit me...they have _never_ listened to him. He told them "My mom is mean to me" when he was only 2 1/2, and nothing happened. Well, his preschool teacher called his mother and _told_ her what Paxton said. Guess how that worked out for him?

Anyway, I've come to believe that, in this type situation, a toddler can make better choices than an adolescent.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 30, 2022)

Knight said:


> Thus the thought the system isn't 100% perfect. I asked graham if he thought children have rights to chose which parent to live with.
> 
> A simple yes or no would have worked.   I don't know of statistics showing successes & failures. Only personal experiences good or bad show up in posts. As a topic using articles & speculation by  Jonathan Hafen, published in 1995). & what might be different now hasn't gone anywhere.


coming back to this...

Astoundingly, state courts and state-appointed "family counselors" rely pretty heavily on various child psych author's data and speculations drawn from observations during various therapies, including experimental ones. There are no concrete conclusions in that field, yet observations are charted as though they are conclusive. And from what I've seen, CPS and family courts rely pretty heavily on those charts and data when deciding the fate of "displaced" kids.

Or, more precisely, sticking to the charts and data ensures the support of tax dollars. Courts and especially child protection services can make decisions and verdicts that line up nicely with favored charts and data, and this apparently pleases the state treasurer.


----------



## grahamg (Dec 1, 2022)

Knight said:


> Let's forget for a moment what Hafen has written.
> As this pertains to children.
> Autonomy is the ability to make your own decisions about what to do rather than being influenced by someone else or told what to do.
> What is your opinion?
> ...


You are right to try to focus on the "bigger picture" here, and ask challenging questions I'm sure I'll struggle to answer to your satisfaction at least, (luckily another more able forum member has put forward strong arguments to assist in criticising the system I dislike).

On the subject of children's wishes, I believe I'm right in telling you our UK courts used to assume thirty years ago a child would spout the views of the parent they resided with most of the time, (hence your very direct questions could be argued against by asking you a question as to whether you believe children can be "vulnerable to manipulation and control"?, though I'm not going to!).

I will now confess to you I find myself almost completely beaten by what I see as the issues confronting any marginalised parent, and feeling this I'm drawn to all kinds of conclusions I don't wish to have to consider.

If I were to try to advise someone approaching our UK family court system for the first time seeking their support, I'd be pushed to say anything positive I truly believed.

Will you therefore accept for now my contention, (in response to your questions), asking children their views "in itself" can be harmful?


----------



## grahamg (Dec 1, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> @grahamg
> "_contemporary society reveals increasing adult indifference toward the nurturing of children"!_
> I agree. Government agencies and state courts are no less indifferent, or as increasingly indifferent.


Its troubling isn't it, you do have to wonder what goes on at that level.

I was once told by someone representing our UK Lord Chancellors department, (then the name of the government organisation with the highest legal authority in our country) in response to a question I raised, that "They understood the pressures exerted upon children in high conflict divorce cases".

They did not in my view answer the question I raised, (or the short sentence quoted was as near as they got in my view).

I'd asked them whether they agree with the statement made by a Canadian lawyer who said, "There is a moral failure in smugly asserting children have rights without taking into consideration their psychological and practical vulnerability to manipulation and control".

The Canadian lawyer was a young woman called Goldwater, writing in 1991, and I came across her assertion, (that I hope I've remembered correctly word for word), in a book called " Lost Children" written by Penny Cross.

My admiration for Penny is enormous, who I've met once at a meeting in our UK house of parliament in Westminster, and she lost all contact with her four children within a couple of months of splitting from her husband, (I think they were adolescents).
The outcome for her eldest son was very bad indeed, as he died aged twenty one in circumstances she didn't entirely spell out, (but he had written into his will at this young age that "his mother was not to be permitted to attend his funeral"!).

Returning to the response I received from the UK government legal body, I did try to follow up by asking them to clarify their views on Goldwater's statement, but got no further reply, (this being the only issue I've ever raised with them).

I believe the intention of their one letter was to try to tell me I should have faith in the legal system, (regardless of anything else perhaps!).

Did the legal system do its job properly when I approached them? Whether they did or not I'm left feeling as I mentioned in the post above this one, that I could have had no faith in it, knowing ultimately our UK legal system felt no obligation to try to assist me, (once the law changed in the 1990s).


----------



## Knight (Dec 1, 2022)

@Murrmurr
I've posted that the system isn't 100% perfect. 

This from your post #38 about Paxton

Quote
 "Now he's 4, and he's in his 3rd foster home. It's a really good one, and I'm happy for him, but the poor little man is asking CPS to let him visit me...they have never listened to him. He told them "My mom is mean to me" when he was only 2 1/2, and nothing happened. Well, his preschool teacher called his mother and told her what Paxton said. Guess how that worked out for him?"

At 2 1/2
"My mom is mean to me"  What does that mean? Unless CPS is there 24/7 watching exactly what "mean" might be how can the system be faulted? He was in pre school, verbal by Paxton prompted a call to the mother. The teacher called the mother not CPS. Isn't that reasonable for verbal?  

My questions 
1.What alerted CPS to cause him to be placed in foster care.
2. Why different homes in a reasonably short period of time.
3. Why the ongoing placements? 

I don't expect answers since you wouldn't be privy to the reasons, it's just a way to ask you if you think CPS was acting in Paxtons best interest.  


Continuing with the content in your post at age 4.
 "Now he's 4, and he's in his 3rd foster home. It's a really good one, and I'm happy for him,

It took time doesn't that sound like the system is working?


----------



## Knight (Dec 1, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Will you therefore accept for now my contention, (in response to your questions), asking children their views "in itself" can be harmful?


How would you change the system?  Everything from initial contact to a court decision.


----------



## grahamg (Dec 1, 2022)

Knight said:


> How would you change the system?  Everything from initial contact to a court decision.


I have only one change to propose, and it is one our UK family courts have considered, (maybe it has even been legislated for but not enacted).

It is a "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact", (hence a qualified right, requiring the courts to support parents approaching them unless there is a good reason not to do so). 

I hope you appreciate the brief/succinct response to your question!


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 1, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Its troubling isn't it, you do have to wonder what goes on at that level.
> 
> I was once told by someone representing our UK Lord Chancellors department, (then the name of the government organisation with the highest legal authority in our country) in response to a question I raised, that "They understood the pressures exerted upon children in high conflict divorce cases".
> 
> ...


All a legal system can do is decide people's fate based on evidence and eyewitness testimony. Paxton was cruelly abused by his mother for over a year, but no one witnessed it. They had her word and his, and he was only 3. He could say "My mommy is mean" but he would only say it to me. She could say "He falls a lot," and the investigation is over. 

Now he's 4, and (finally) she's prohibited from contacting him in any way, but an upcoming court decision could reunite them....again. This is the 3rd time she's been in court over her poor parenting skills (or, complete lack of them, more like). Maybe the 3rd one's the charm. 

And I have as much faith in that superstition as I do the Family Court judge (zero).

Here's something that might stoke the fire that's burning your arse: I took photos of bruises and scratches that I found on Paxton's entire body when his mom dropped him off here for a weekend early last year. Dozens of bruises, the worst and largest ones on his head and face and there was a fresh wound on his lip. I sent those photos to his CPS caseworker. She never looked at them. She didn't even open my email. I called her supervisor about that, and nothing happened. I called the director of social services, and 2 weeks later, the caseworker and her supervisor were fired. But my photos were not used at that trial, and they won't be used at the upcoming one. 

Guess why?

They are an embarrassment to CPS (child protection services). That's my guess. They've had those photos for since Feb 2021, and they're very good evidence - damning, in fact, because the ones on his head and face were clearly caused by an adult's hands, and the wrap-around bruises on his arm looked exactly like a thumb and 4 fingers, and even had a few small curved cuts where she'd obviously dug her nails in - but they weren't presented in court then, and they won't be used now, because they highlight CPS's failure to do their job; which was to _protect_ Paxton from his abusive mother.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 1, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I have only one change to propose, and it is one our UK family courts have considered, (maybe it has even been legislated for but not enacted).
> 
> It is a "*rebuttable presumption in favour of contact*", (hence a qualified right, requiring the courts to support parents approaching them unless there is a good reason not to do so).
> 
> I hope you appreciate the brief/succinct response to your question!


(if I understand you correctly) Here's the problem with that...

Again, in Paxton's case, everyone involved, judges, caseworkers, parole officers, and even I was convinced Paxton's father was a decent guy who just made a mistake - a year ago he used bodily force to stop Paxton's mother from hurting him...and then he threatened to kill her. But so did I, I just had the good sense to not do it out loud. 

Now it's a year later, and everyone was still sympathetic toward the father, and even though the court slapped a no-contact order against the mom, they granted the dad twice-weekly visits with Paxton and his younger twin siblings. This guy is so nice and polite, and calm and affectionate with his kids, the judge actually considered him a good candidate for eventually getting full custody of all 3 kids.

Until last week, that is. Last week the father was arrested and charged with 4 counts of robbery and 1 attempted robbery. And 5 days later he confessed that he was stealing the money and saving it up so he could abduct the kids, _collect their mother_, and run off to Mexico. 

Ay-yi-yi!


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 1, 2022)

Knight said:


> @Murrmurr
> I've posted that the system isn't 100% perfect.
> 
> This from your post #38 about Paxton
> ...


(Check my comment #45 for some details, too)

Frankly, I don't know how the CPS system _can_ work. Their decisions are mostly based on who they think is probably not lying. The only cases where it's all cut and dried are when someone reports a kid in a cage or a kid that's obviously malnourished, etc.

Paxton, and a year later, his twin siblings, were taken by CPS when their mother tested positive for meth and THC in the labor room. So, she didn't even spend a day with him (nor them) before he went to a receiving home. He'd been there for 3 weeks when his grandmother, my mother's next-door neighbor for 4 decades, told me all about this and I offered to foster him. I'd just gotten a "Resource Family" license a few months earlier.

The mother, Tara, was ordered to go to rehab, NA meetings, and counseling. CPS pays for all that. While CPS looked for a facility with an available bed, Tara was allowed to come here and visit Paxton under my supervision. His dad came, too. The visits were regular the first few weeks, then some were missed, and then they became real sporadic. I had to turn them away early one morning because they'd obviously been on a meth binge all night. They weren't even supposed to be there til 2pm.

Anyway, then Tara got pregnant with the twins and went into hiding until they were born, and then she finally entered in-patient rehab, so Paxton and I didn't see her for about a year. He was 5 months old when she entered rehab, and, because she didn't progress well, he was 13 months old when she finally graduated and was granted visitation.

Tara was moved to "transitional housing" and failed 3 drug tests. When Paxton was 20 months old, CPS started talking to me about adoption. Meanwhile, Tara had been granted weekends with her kids at her TH apartment, under staff supervision. At the TH facility, she won badges for attending NA meetings and doing certain chores and generally being a good person, and when Paxton was 28 months old, court granted her custody of all 3 kids. She'd told her CPS-funded attorney that she only wanted the twins, but, naturally, the attorney told her to never say that again.

So, she got all 3 kids and their dad moved them in with him, into a house his dad owned. The grandma tells me they drink and fight and Paxton is scared, so I tell Tara I'll take him off her hands; bring him over on weekends. And she did. Some weekends were 5 days long, none were less than 3. That's when I started seeing a change in his attitude and injuries on him, and he told me his mom was mean to him.

8 months later, CPS took the kids again, but not because of the changes and injuries I reported, it was because the father called 911. He and Tara had a bad physical fight, and it was over her abuse of Paxton. Cops came, they called CPS, the CPS worker tests Tara for drugs, and it's positive. The worker took the kids because of the drug test. The abuse was forgotten about. Because it's so hard to prove? idk. This all happened in another county, so the kids were placed in a foster home there. Fortunately, it was a good one. About 2 months later, I was granted a weekend visit with Paxton, which the foster mom said was very beneficial, so they became routine...every other weekend.

A whole year later, Tara completes rehab again, and the court gave her kids back to her. By that time, CPS was talking to the foster mom about adoption, and she and her husband had decided to do that; they loved the kids. They liked me a lot, too. I was "Uncle Frank" to Paxton, the twins, and the foster parents own 2 kids.

7 months later, Paxton's preschool teacher started reporting suspicious bruises and scratches on him. Then the kids' grandma's home security caught Tara abusing Paxton. The kids were taken a 3rd time. Because me and Michelle were still in our 1-br apartment, the kids were placed with the couple who fostered the twins right after they were born and til they were 18 months.

Tara's hearing is scheduled for soon, but I don't know when. CPS wants her charged with abuse of a minor and exposing minors to abuse of a minor.


----------



## Pepper (Dec 1, 2022)

Frank this story is tattooed on your heart.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 1, 2022)

Pepper said:


> Frank this story is tattooed on your heart.


@Knight might be sorry he asked.


----------



## Knight (Dec 1, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> @Knight might be sorry he asked.


Not sorry I asked. You filled in details that were missing in the post I questioned.  Your continued interest in Paxtons welfare managed to get CPS employees fired. The system follows protocol that in the case with Paxton don't align with the best interests of the child.

Perhaps your continuing interest in his welfare will eventually help him.  We can all hope for the best.

My continuing posts are about children having the right to express themselves which grahamg seems to want disallowed.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 1, 2022)

Sorry, @Knight; I missed this part, too...

_"Now he's 4, and he's in his 3rd foster home. It's a really good one, and I'm happy for him, but the poor little man is asking CPS to let him visit me...they have never listened to him. He told them "My mom is mean to me" when he was only 2 1/2, and nothing happened. Well, his preschool teacher called his mother and told her what Paxton said. Guess how that worked out for him?"

At 2 1/2
"My mom is mean to me"  What does that mean? Unless CPS is there 24/7 watching exactly what "mean" might be how can the system be faulted? _*He was in pre school, verbal by Paxton prompted a call to the mother. The teacher called the mother not CPS. Isn't that reasonable for verbal?*

Actually, teachers of children with an open CPS case are required to advise CPS first. The kids were living with their mom but this happened within the 6-month post-reunification "support period", when CPS monitors the family, regular drug tests are required, and preschool and therapies aren't optional...the state retains the right to make decisions re the kids' education and health.  It's possible the teacher forgot. CPS is notorious for it's lack of communication and poor teamwork.


----------



## Knight (Dec 1, 2022)

@Murrmurr

As a topic that is near & dear to grahamg's heart ongoing posts IMO help me understand why it's important to him. Input from you reinforces my belief children should be heard when it come to their welfare.


----------



## Knight (Dec 1, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I have only one change to propose, and it is one our UK family courts have considered, (maybe it has even been legislated for but not enacted).
> 
> It is a "rebuttable presumption in favour of contact", (hence a qualified right, requiring the courts to support parents approaching them unless there is a good reason not to do so).
> 
> I hope you appreciate the brief/succinct response to your question!


OK  so how would a court or judge get information to hear & decide on a rebuttal. What credible source would be used to present facts? How would investigation into a rebuttal be funded? 

You continue to post about parental rights. 
Still didn't get a response to.
 Do you believe children should be able to have the right to chose whether they want to live with only one parent or be emancipated?


----------



## grahamg (Dec 2, 2022)

Knight said:


> Not sorry I asked. You filled in details that were missing in the post I questioned.  Your continued interest in Paxtons welfare managed to get CPS employees fired. The system follows protocol that in the case with Paxton don't align with the best interests of the child.
> Perhaps your continuing interest in his welfare will eventually help him.  We can all hope for the best.
> My continuing posts are about children having the right to express themselves which grahamg seems to want disallowed.


I think you've slightly overstated my case.

I'd settle for the situation I was told existed in English law, when courts were said to assume the views of the child would align with those of the parent they lived with most of the time, (as mentioned earlier).

We've read Hafens views between us, and not so far as I'm aware demolished his assertion "children are being abandoned to their autonomy", (though others have tried to do so as quoted earlier on the thread).

That is an issue, if it has any credence, and is very much linked to the issue you wish to accuse me of, denying children a voice in high conflict situations, (or at least following the assumptions I believe were formerly followed in our UK courts).

If children are being manipulated into saying whatever they might say, and/or succumbing to inevitable pressures placed upon them, can you continue to assert giving "the children the right to be heard" is doing them any favours, (and maybe risks making the family law system into a farce, where any rubbish gets accepted as fact)?

You don't get to decide who your parents are under any normal situations, yet it seems okay to pretend giving children a voice to do just that is a good thing you appear to be arguing, (hope I'm not too guilty of overstating your position there?).


----------



## grahamg (Dec 2, 2022)

Knight said:


> @Murrmurr
> As a topic that is near & dear to grahamg's heart ongoing posts IMO help me understand why it's important to him. Input from you reinforces my belief children should be heard when it come to their welfare.


Its my belief there is plenty of room for Murrmurr to achieve the protections he wishes to see delivered, (and I'd support), and the modest reform I've stated I seek, i.e. A"rebuttable presumption in favour of contact".

If harm to a child isnt sufficient to deny a parent their "rebuttable" right of contact then what is?


----------



## grahamg (Dec 2, 2022)

Knight said:


> OK  so how would a court or judge get information to hear & decide on a rebuttal. What credible source would be used to present facts? How would investigation into a rebuttal be funded?
> You continue to post about parental rights.
> Still didn't get a response to.
> Do you believe children should be able to have the right to chose whether they want to live with only one parent or be emancipated?


I'm only suggesting a return to what I believe was the case in UK courts thirty years ago, so not so revolutionary a change in my view, (and as previously stated our UK government enacted legislation permitting the presumption I keep mentioning, just hadn't brought it into force).


----------



## Pookie (Dec 2, 2022)

Wow. What a mess.

Why can't some parents (married or otherwise) put their love for a child or children above their hate and anger toward each other?

That has always baffled me.


----------



## grahamg (Dec 2, 2022)

Pookie said:


> but in ow. What a mess.
> Why can't some parents (married or otherwise) put their love for a child or children above their hate and anger toward each other?
> That has always baffled me.


I'd suggest human nature probably means some separated parents feel threatened should the child feel love towards their former partner, (and any new partners each parent has acquired may reinforce this feeling, and encourage condemnation of the target parent).
I'm told this is common enough, and the woman I mentioned who lost contact with all four of her children within a few months of splitting from her husband (called Penny Cross), explained the situation you're rightly appalled about but it is very difficult to avoid.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 2, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I'd suggest human nature probably means some separated parents feel threatened should the child feel love towards their former partner, (and any new partners each parent has acquired may reinforce this feeling, and encourage condemnation of the target parent).
> I'm told this is common enough, and the woman I mentioned who lost contact with all four of her children within a few months of splitting from her husband (called Penny Cross), explained the situation you're rightly appalled about but it is *very difficult to avoid*.


I think I know why the love tug-of-war is very difficult to avoid; because people used to raise their kids by The Golden Rule, and how to make the best of what they had, and toys weren't franchised - no one's ever made a movie about a Tonka Truck or a pack of marbles turning into superheros - televisions weren't more than 26" across, kids didn't own pocket-sized computers, little girls didn't wear make-up, and kids clothes looked like kids clothes - the only time an 8 year old girl wore clothes that were too tight or too short is when she was in the process of outgrowing them. 

Plus, schools taught academics, not social behavior. The teacher didn't play psychologist and suggest you put your son on medication so he'd stop fidgeting and pay attention. 

As late as while mine were growing up, kids lived under the restraint, discipline, and tutelage of the adults and authorities in their lives. That's not the case anymore. Ask a 12yr-old today to name one authority figure in his life and he'll tell you he doesn't have any...no one has authority over his life. Except maybe one or two YouTube influencers.

So, today's kids believe they are autonomous. And a lot of them have to be because mom's too hungover to make breakfast and get them off to school with a decent lunch, and it's anyone's guess where dad slept. And then you have the other half, where mom has to leave for work before the kids even finish their artificially flavored cereal, and dad sleeps until about dinnertime because he works nights, but that's ok because they don't eat together anyway - little Janie is at her BFF's house experimenting with make-up and fashion-trends and young David's at Steve's place experimenting with drugs. And way too many parents have become so narcissistic they're too hung up on their own unfulfilled desires, weight-gain, sagging boobs and diminishing ab-muscle definition to even care about what their kids are up to.

And laws have to keep up with change and be equally fair to everyone. And, imo, law creators can't do that. No legislator is genius enough, political bias effects their thinking, and a lot of them are corrupt anyway...they have their own influencers. 

Laws are not and can not be fair. Not to everyone. That's my opinion, anyway. And it's unshakable.


----------



## Pookie (Dec 3, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I'd suggest human nature probably means some separated parents feel threatened should the child feel love towards their former partner, (and any new partners each parent has acquired may reinforce this feeling, and encourage condemnation of the target parent).
> I'm told this is common enough, and the woman I mentioned who lost contact with all four of her children within a few months of splitting from her husband (called Penny Cross), explained the situation you're rightly appalled about but it is very difficult to avoid.


I can understand the separated parents do work together and the child loves them both. But here is the thing. New partners. New partners with single parents buy them iPhones, games, computer consoles, computers, even cars to encourage the kids to come over to the new boyfriend/girlfriend. Then the kids end up living with those people and it's a total train wreck because these relationships aren't stable.


----------



## grahamg (Dec 3, 2022)

Pookie said:


> I can understand the separated parents do work together and the child loves them both. But here is the thing. New partners. New partners with single parents buy them iPhones, games, computer consoles, computers, even cars to encourage the kids to come over to the new boyfriend/girlfriend. Then the kids end up living with those people and it's a total train wreck because these relationships aren't stable.


I'm glad you came back on this topic, as I was contemplating adding to my last response to your first message.

Using this lady Penny Cross who lost all contact with her four children within months of breaking up from her husband, if we're prepared to consider her actions not warranting losing all contact with her children, and yes I'm pretty sure having read Penny's book her ex. carries much responsibility for this situation I will assume, (without hearing his side I know, but if I went into the detail I do have I think I could persuade most to agree with my view), then where does this take us?

I'd say focus should be on the way the family courts chose to treat Penny, and this leads on to her eventually setting up an organisation to help other mothers in the same situation, and write such a broadly researched and intellectually robust book. 

I can imagine Penny's children's views having been considered by the courts, and hence she received no assistance. However, if the courts did try to assist her in the UK the fact is any "contact order" they might have granted would not have been worth the paper it was written on I believe.

I know this sounds like all speculation, and much of it is, but where I'm going with this is to refer to a man and his daughter who I met on my one visit to our UK House of Parliament. This man's wife had left taking their three daughters to live in France with her new partner. The man approached the French courts when contact with his children was being blocked and was granted a contact order. Now here is the difference between the French system and the UK system, the father was told by the French judge when he granted the order, that if his ex. did not comply with it then he was not to return to court, but to go to the local gendarmerie and an officer would accompany him and make sure he got to see his children.

I mention this of course to show family courts can address the issue of one parent obstructing contact if they wish, and its too great a cop out to say "the UK family law cannot address all the issues between parents over their children following divorce". 

Now returning to what you have said above in your latest post, I believe I know what can go through the minds of those attempting to maintain contact with their children following divorce/separation. 

Some mothers who have custody of the child may with some justification feel the need to "prove" they are more than just good mothers, but paragons of virtue, even saying pious things like "In a perfect world the father should have contact with their child", (whilst in reality they have been doing all in their power to make sure the threat they see the child loving their dads does not mean the dad is loved by the child as much as the child loves them). Bear in mind too the child, (although not a clone obviously), will be like their mother in many respects, and maybe try to model their behaviour on them. In fact the love a father might have once felt for their wife plays a part in the way they feel about their child, I think that's the case isn't it, and while doing all in their power to put this to one side when trying to maintain their relationship with the child, the father is hardly likely to be able to behave totally normally towards their ex., as though they had never been married.

One last comment concerns the man mentioned above whose wife took the three daughters to live in France. Once contact with those children had been successfully established with the help of the French courts, he and his ex. did become friendly enough so that when he visited France his ex-wife permitted him to stay at the home she had made with her new partner. 

To my mind this shows the wisdom of the French courts, and the judge presiding, and their whole family courts system. Dealing with contact orders in a very direct way, demonstrating the flouting of their orders was a serious matter, and so on, (all of which is not the case here I'm reliably informed).


----------



## Pookie (Dec 3, 2022)

When you have a baby, and married and all is good, there should never be an issue if you separate. I never went through this but a friend did. Thks stuff sounds a little nuts, but having lived overseas for a short time, nothing surprises me there.


----------



## grahamg (Dec 3, 2022)

Pookie said:


> When you have a baby, and married and all is good, there should never be an issue if you separate. I never went through this but a friend did. Thinks stuff sounds a little nuts, but having lived overseas for a short time, nothing surprises me there.


Where a difference could be made, instead of framing everything in terms of what someone claims is in the child's best interests, (and then all the arguments over whether the child has a voice, or is being manipulated etc., etc., etc.), why not obliged the courts to take a view that decent parents should be helped. Those parents who have done all they could, (and as much as anyone could reasonably be expected to do for the children they love), that the courts duty then, in the interests of justice, is to help those parents at least a little?


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 3, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I'm glad you came back on this topic, as I was contemplating adding to my last response to your first message.
> 
> Using this lady Penny Cross who lost all contact with her four children within months of breaking up from her husband, if we're prepared to consider her actions not warranting losing all contact with her children, and yes I'm pretty sure having read Penny's book her ex. carries much responsibility for this situation I will assume, (without hearing his side I know, but if I went into the detail I do have I think I could persuade most to agree with my view), then where does this take us?
> 
> ...


A few comments about this....

One thing CPS gets right is, they don't believe paragons of virtue exist except in fiction. I try to be patient with the CPS caseworkers because I know most of them have met and had to work with dregs of society who have spawned, some of them prolifically, and had to treat them fairly for months, sometimes years. To see damaged children big and small, day in and day out, effects a person. CPS caseworkers are not friendly, cheery folk, and family court judges are aloof, at best.

The downside of that is, it's nearly impossible to convince them that you actually, really do want what's best for the children involved and that you're not in the fight for what YOU want. And that's the system's greatest challenge: that most parents are really fighting for what _they_ want....like 98% of them, seriously.

This is irrelevant, but Paxton's mom, Tara, just wanted to be the winner. She just hates to lose, and when she does lose she gets revenge, one way or another. Second to winning, she wanted the twins because twins are a novelty. They brought her a lot of attention...although, she always had to _tell_ people they were twins because they weren't identical. One is a boy, one is a girl, she's fairly robust, he's puny. They don't even look like siblings. But she was sure to tell everyone, and soaked up the attention like a dry, empty sponge. Also, Tara thinks giving birth to twins makes her Supermom.

In the US, Penny's guy would be charged with child abduction for leaving the court's jurisdiction. But no one would bother going further than notifying French authorities that he was around there somewhere and to be on the look-out, unless the guy was known to be in dangerous. But in a similar situation in the US, he'd be on a fly-list and at risk of immediate arrest if he ever touched US soil again.

Bottom line in reference to this thread's title/topic, *IF* assessing Penny's (or anyone's) children's wishes indeed undermined their wishes, then the assessment was flawed, and Penny (or anyone in the same situation) should have immediately hired an attorney (if she didn't). 

Assessment is very often the only tool available to family courts in these situations. One can only hope the assessor is highly qualified. And a highly qualified child psychologist with an impressive history of doing accurate assessments would be the first person Penny's attorney would have (should have) hired.


----------



## Knight (Dec 3, 2022)

Ever curious I searched for an explanation of what a person might need to know about hiring a family law lawyer. I arbitrarily picked this. There is a lot more involved than I thought. The different situations are to long to copy & paste.  

https://greenvillefamilylaw.com/chi...orney usually,affordable lawyers can be found.

Hiring a law firm might be affordable since it seems there are so many to chose from.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 3, 2022)

I'll add that, if Paxton's wishes had been assessed, he'd be living with me right now, and wouldn't have suffered 2 years of physical and emotional abuse, and fear, from his mother.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 3, 2022)

Knight said:


> Ever curious I searched for an explanation of what a person might need to know about hiring a family law lawyer. I arbitrarily picked this. There is a lot more involved than I thought. The different situations are to long to copy & paste.
> 
> https://greenvillefamilylaw.com/child-custody-lawyer-cost/#:~:text=A child custody attorney usually,affordable lawyers can be found.
> 
> Hiring a law firm might be affordable since it seems there are so many to chose from.


Yeah, you want to hire one with as much experience and/or success as possible with the type of situation you're in. But it's a very lucrative field. That's one reason why there are so many.

And the parent who stands accused or is the defendant is eligible for a court appointed attorney if they can't afford one. (tho, I can't recommend one of those)


----------



## grahamg (Dec 3, 2022)

Though its easy to make out someone is a paragon of virtue, and equally easy to make out someone isn't, you don't have to have much compassion in your nature to wish to see someone having given birth to four children playing some part in their lives, and not ruled out of them within months of her marriage failing. We're not talking an "unfit" mother here, though interestingly, and maybe typically, the organisation Penny set up offered support and assistance to all excluded mothers no matter what.

Folks are as obsessed with this term "What's in the child's best interests" as ever I note, and as a term its a load of garbage if you don't mind my saying, not least because you can define it however you like, (as can the courts and its officers).


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 3, 2022)

grahamg said:


> Though its easy to make out someone is a paragon of virtue, and equally easy to make out someone isn't, you don't have to have much compassion in your nature to wish to see someone having given birth to four children playing some part in their lives, and not ruled out of them within months of her marriage failing. We're not talking an "unfit" mother here, though interestingly, and maybe typically, the organisation Penny set up offered support and assistance to all excluded mothers no matter what.
> 
> Folks are as obsessed with this term "What's in the child's best interests" as ever I note, and as a term its a load of garbage if you don't mind my saying, not least because you can define it however you like, (as can the courts and its officers).


It's all but impossible for me to believe the court barred Penny from her children for no reason, and if our courts and yours are similar at all then the reason was most likely their safety. 

Here, the law reads precisely "the court will protect the child's right to have his or her best interests _assessed and taken into account as a primary consideration_ in all actions or decisions that concern him or her, both in the public and private sphere."

"Bests interests" is not an easy term to pin down. In US Children's Rights, Article 3 it's defined as "a dynamic concept that requires an assessment appropriate to the specific context." And what that encompasses depends on how the specific concepts are understood. For example, different cultural, religious, and moral concepts...all rather sticky wickets, right? Well here's another layer of goo, the article also states "no right (of the child) may be compromised by a negative interpretation of the child’s best interests."

I don't wonder why so many Family Court judges seem emotionally dead. In fact, I get sick with worry when we get an emotional one.

I know absolutely nothing about Penny, so in my next point I'll use examples I know personally: Among members of Paxton's immediate family (parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins) we have a liquor store robber, repeat offender, three former meth addicts currently claiming to be clean, one who attempted suicide 6 years ago and again 5 years ago, one with multiple misdemeanor shoplifting convictions, one investigated for major insurance fraud, three who have been detained for domestic violence, two arrested for it, and one convicted of it.

The issue here is that the court has to assume that (in addition to the parents) the children will be exposed to at least one of these people at some point growing up. To trust Paxton's parents to prevent that exposure would be risking his and his sibling's safety and their future.

The assessment is written into the law. It's required. And while I firmly believe children over 2 should be asked who they want to live with, that's not the only thing it's about.  #1 on the "best interests" list is the child's safety, and nothing supersedes that. Not even culture and religion. So, immediate family members and their history are assessed, and courts here even order background checks through the FBI, in case the kind of stuff in my previous paragraph lurks there.


----------



## grahamg (Dec 4, 2022)

In response to Murrurr's excellent post above, (that I didn't want to scrunch up by quoting):

Penny won't have been barred by the UK family courts from her children's lives, just not supported, (and that's very different isn't it). The reason will have been the views of her children, and if you can accept this without going into it any further, the reason all those children refused to see their mother will have been their fathers influence.

You've painted a very disturbing picture of the situation you're trying to deal with, and I've no advice at all to impart, but thank you for explaining the way US family courts try to proceed in line with your laws.

My "compassion" point above still stands doesn't it, I'm sure you'd have wished someone in authority had tried to assist a very good mother overcome the obstacles placed in her way over contact with her children, if UK family law had allowed this(?).


----------



## grahamg (Dec 7, 2022)

Knight said:


> Ever curious I searched for an explanation of what a person might need to know about hiring a family law lawyer. I arbitrarily picked this. There is a lot more involved than I thought. The different situations are to long to copy & paste.
> https://greenvillefamilylaw.com/child-custody-lawyer-cost/#:~:text=A child custody attorney usually,affordable lawyers can be found.
> Hiring a law firm might be affordable since it seems there are so many to chose from.


Mentioning lawyers, and potential costs employing one, the fact there are so many maybe indicates what a lucrative business it is for them, attempting to assist those going through marital troubles and its aftermath.

In the UK a tv drama programme has received criticism from those defending the family law system because programme makers have shown the two former spouses attempting to "win" in court, and proceedings are depicted as a battle, (and this those supporting our UK family don't like as they wish to project an impression that family law isn't a battle ground).

Its very difficult to suggest to anyone here who has gone through our family law system and fought to stay in their child's life, that "blame" of some kind isn't going to be apportioned in either the court or by court appointed officers writing their reports.

Are children to be blamed when they choose to make sure the parent they choose to be criticised cannot fully appreciate the situation the parent they've apportioned all fault to in the relationship, when they've no idea at all what it means to try to be a parent, and honestly maintain any kind of role or authority.

Criticising lived ones isn't something I believe parents should be engaged in, especially in front of strangers, and yet all these issues are raised "because the child's voice must be heard" in family law proceedings, (and without the courts making any assumptions that might assist the target parent).

Thus disarmed, how easy it is for the court and its officers to blame a parent for not living up to standards they've set, (even without ever witnessing any contact visits or listening to those who have).


----------



## grahamg (Dec 13, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Yeah, you want to hire one with as much experience and/or success as possible with the type of situation you're in. But it's a very lucrative field. That's one reason why there are so many.
> And the parent who stands accused or is the defendant is eligible for a court appointed attorney if they can't afford one. (tho, I can't recommend one of those)


I hope you dont mind my coming back to your post, following my discovery of these websites concerning the way those lying in family courts may be treated, (and the lawyers representing/advising them?):
http://www.familylore.co.uk/2020/11/why-are-people-allowed-to-lie-in-family.html

https://www.longmores.law/articles/... court will take,drawn from lies with caution.

Quote
"However, as derived from criminal law, the Family Court also approaches inferences to be drawn from lies with caution. This caution is summarised in the leading case _R v Lucas_ [1981] QB 720:

“_If a court concludes that a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons. For example out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure…The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just case, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family_.”
In summary, both in deciding whether a determination of truth is required and how to deal with any determination, the focus must be on how this relates to the difference in the substantive outcome sought by each party.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 13, 2022)

grahamg said:


> I hope you dont mind my coming back to your post, following my discovery of these websites concerning the way those lying in family courts may be treated, (and the lawyers representing/advising them?):
> http://www.familylore.co.uk/2020/11/why-are-people-allowed-to-lie-in-family.html
> 
> https://www.longmores.law/articles/what-do-i-do-if-my-ex-partner-is-lying-to-the-family-court/#:~:text=Naturally, the court will take,drawn from lies with caution.
> ...


Child custody cases involve people who stand to lose custody their kids to the state, an ex-spouse or a relative whom they loathe, and sometimes to people they've never even met. These cases are extremely emotionally charged, and both sides will do _anything_ to get custody of the kids. 

In Paxton's case you've got a mother who doesn't even love him, she just hates to lose to people in authority. So, for her, the case isn't even about what's best for the child, it's about mom not losing. And without exception, she has lied every time she's gone before a family court judge. Without exception. I think most of the judges see through her lies, or at least recognize that she's putting on an act, but when there's no hard evidence, when its just a he-said/she-said thing, the judge has always decided in the mother's favor. Erring on the side of family unity, but unfortunately, most family courts still cling to the archaic view that only a child's mother is *real family*.

There's plenty of hard evidence in Paxton's upcoming case. There's an actual recording of his mother abusing him, and it's a triple-whammy; over 2 hours of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse. Plus there's testimony and xrays from the doctor and nurses who examined him at a hospital that day, eyewitness testimony from Paxton's teacher, and recordings of Paxton himself being questioned by a social worker. And now that Pax is 4 1/2, that might hold water. 

So, after 2 years of abuse at the hands of his Mother(), I think Paxton will finally get justice. I think family court will at last do what actually is in the best interest of the child. 

However, I still have doubts. The mother will lie in court, and a few friends, Paxton's father, and her new boyfriend agreed to testify about what a great mom she is. The father will have to testify from jail, but it's still testimony...eyewitness, to boot. I hope he tells the judge what he told Pax's grandma - "She didn't hurt him _that_ bad. I mean, it's not like she broke any bones."


----------



## grahamg (Dec 17, 2022)

A friend of mine wrote this to me recently, and I thought it worth sharing here:

"*Whilst my Emails may read as if I just made a decision, and moved on, its been 15 years since I had any kind of contact in the normal sense, with any of my marital family, or their descendants, and although I’ve managed to cope with that, there are still many times where I wish I at least understood why they decided to alienate me, otherwise there will never be closure, but equally, I do not want to be seen as some kind of pest, so here I am, stuck between a rock and a hard place, damned if I do,, and damned if I don’t, and with a catch 22 situation like that, the best thing to do, is to just stay away, otherwise all I’ll do is get hurt.

Like they say, “you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your family” and although it’s awful to be so cut off, and despite the love and affection I receive from my little adopted family, there’s nothing like family, if they’re loving, to be a part of, because that sense of belonging is always going to be missing with friends, who all have families of their own, to which you will always know, you simply don’t belong.

This time of year particularly, really brings the isolation to the fore, as friends, naturally, head off to be with family, as we sit in silence alone.

To distract myself from the sadness of that, I usually drive into Melbourne, where I wander about the City, soaking up the joy of all those I see enjoying Christmas Eve, until I get tired, then head home to fall asleep, so that I awake to a new day, where I then take myself out to lunch at a restaurant, to at least enjoy a Christmas dinner, among those who are celebrating with others. 

This helps pass the day and after that, thing very quickly get back to normal and another Year begins.

The reality is of course, we are, on the outside, looking in, often alone with our thoughts, wondering why?"*


----------

