![]() ![]() Cuts to legal aid means many mothers and fathers end up representing themselves, which means women can find themselves in the awful position of being cross-examined in front of a hostile judge by their abuser. Two things have made the situation worse. Women can find themselves in a catch-22, told by social services they must leave their abuser or risk their children being taken into care, but then disbelieved by a judge when that abuser applies for contact. ![]() There is evidence that the system is too quick to assume domestic abuse affects only mothers, not children and that women and children are safe once a relationship is over. It’s also a well-known truth amongst lawyers and domestic abuse charities that there are judges on the circuit who take against women alleging domestic abuse, and I’ve heard horror stories from domestic abuse survivors about their treatment at the hands of judges: think being called “the girl who cried wolf” as the judge ignores evidence to the contrary. That hasn’t stopped the judge involved continuing to preside over family court cases involving domestic abuse allegations and making a similar ruling in another case. ![]() Some judges have no understanding of domestic abuse – as highlighted in an excoriating high court ruling that overturned a finding by a senior male judge that it wasn’t rape “because she didn’t fight back”. This did not stop the government introducing a garbled reform in 2014 that told courts to presume that, unless shown to the contrary, a parent’s involvement in their child’s life will always be to the child’s benefit.īut there is growing evidence to suggest women who have suffered domestic abuse and are worried for their children’s safety face an uphill battle to be taken seriously. It concluded that there should be no legal change that “might risk creating a parental ‘right’ to any particular amount of time with a child” as it would undermine the principle that a child’s welfare is paramount. A 2011 review of family law drew on evidence from Australia, where a legal presumption of shared parenting has been associated with poorer emotional outcomes for children. Their claims of court bias against men have gained broad traction in the debate around the subject, despite evidence to the contrary: a review of published court decisions found that they promote as much contact as possible with fathers, even in cases of proven domestic violence. It has become progressively nastier since then – including a “crummy mummy” campaign singling out famous women for criticism.įathers 4 Justice demand the law enshrines a presumption of 50-50 contact. Next year is the 20th anniversary of the formation of Fathers 4 Justice, a guerilla campaign perhaps best remembered for flourbombing Tony Blair at Prime Minister’s Questions. The lack of transparency about how these decisions are made has allowed a dangerous narrative to prevail: that the system is biased against fathers. Yet judges need to be confident that if they are going to severely restrict a parent’s contact with their child, that parent must probably pose a risk to the child’s welfare. These can be life-and-death decisions – at least 50 children have been killed as a result of contact with abusive parents after separation in the last 25 years. Two in five marriages end in divorce, and there are more than 40,000 cases a year that come before the courts that relate to custody and contact with children, a majority including allegations of domestic abuse. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |