Posted on 05/01/2008 8:26:08 AM PDT by blam
Good fathers 'powerless against vengeful mothers'
By Tom Peterkin
Last Updated: 1:04PM BST 01/05/2008
Decent fathers are left powerless to see their estranged children if vengeful mothers are determined to prevent access, a senior judge has admitted. Lord Justice Ward attacked child access law after presiding over a case that saw a “vicious” mother falsely accuse her ex-husband of sexually abusing their child.
He spoke out after telling the father that there was nothing he could do to help him re-establish contact with his daughter after his ex-wife turned her against him.
The man’s 14-year-old daughter, who cannot been identified, had been influenced by a “drip, drip, drip of venom” from his ex-wife, who wanted to deny him his paternal rights.
Lord Justice Ward said the case was bordering on the scandalous but the court was compelled to act in the interests of the child.
Because of her mother’s “viciously corrupting” influence, it would cause the teenager too much distress if she spent time with her father, he said.
In London’s Civil Appeal Court, Lord Justice Ward said: “The father complains bitterly, passionately, and with every justification, that the law is sterile, impotent and utterly useless.
”But the question is 'what can this court do?’ The answer is nothing.”
The parents were briefly married in the 1990s and their daughter was a baby when they parted.
Lord Justice Ward said it was “impossible” that the girl could remember being abused and it was obvious it was something she had been told and believed.
In 1997 a judge ruled that allegations of sexual abuse were “wholly unfounded”.
The malignant influence of the mother, who lives in the Lincoln area, came to a head when the girl wrote to her father when she was nine.
The letter read: “This is what I really think about you. I hate you and you frighten me. You made my life miserable and stressful. I wish you would die. Leave me alone.”
In 2004 the father went to Lincoln County Court in an attempt to gain access. He was allowed to see her, but only under the supervision of a priest.
The contact was an unhappy experience for the daughter and the arrangement ceased. At a later court hearing, the father virtually admitted that further meetings would distress her.
At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Ward refused the father permission to appeal his decision. The father is considering taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights.
This just in: Water is wet.
The mother should be imprisoned for child abuse.
I wonder how much he is forced to pay in child support each month?
Sun rises in East.
Sky is blue.
Americans are sheep.
Grass is green.
Women hate men.
Despite what “some” people say, I have never heard of a happy divorce.
Mothers typically have the upperhand in divorces on both sides of the Atlantic. I have long been of the opinion that the laws needed to be changed to eliminate as much of the inequities as possible. In Florida “joint custody” is someone’s sick idea of a play on words. Only one parent actually has true legal custody of the child. The other parent loses all legal rights over the child and only regains those rights in the event that the “primary custodian” dies or becomes incapacitated in such a manner as to make them unfit.
I didn’t read in the article whether or not he is paying child support. It would really twist the knife if he wasn’t allowed to see her but was still required to pay for her support.
The court needs to end or drastically reduce (by at least half) any child support arrangement the father is required to pay in recompense for this woman’s hateful actions.
I know some will say that this is punishing the child for the mother’s sins, and you would be partially right. But to not do something to redress the issue is punishing the father for the mother’s sins - which is no more correct.
Until there is some retribution that affects the mother, then this type of behavior is being condoned and encouraged by the state, IMO.
It didn’t happen to me (thank God!) but it happened to a close friend of mine.
It was totally unfounded and unwarranted and ruthlessly launched against him. The “justice system” thirsted for his blood, championed at the time by a then prosecuting attorney Christine Gregoire (who is now Washington state’s embarrassment of a governor). He spent almost six figures over several years just to stay out of jail. Ultimately he prevailed, albeit in a hollow victory.
His reputation was ruined. He was buried in debt.
He never saw his kids again.
The only contact he has ever had was when his x-wife tried to hit him up for more money, years after the child support and extended financial support and college funding had ended. She said it was “for the children” even though they are now in their twenties. The kids are almost completely dysfunctional humans who live on the dole.
They have never attempted to seek him or his family out. Apparently they bought her tale of abuse even though he doted on them and mourned their wrenching departure and grieved after them for years.
In my mind if there was ever an “excuse” for justifiable homicide...
I'd bet $10 he is required to pay in full. British courts aren't all that different from ours.
After a couple of contempt hearings, therapy sessions, etc, my lawyer said, “some things the law can't fix.” He went on to warn me that this behavior would escalate until they/she accused me of something that I couldn't defend against... and at that point I took his advice. One day my daughter will come back into my life, but sadly we're missing the best years together.
Women who use their own children like this are unfit to be parents and should lose parental rights.
“Women who use their own children like this are unfit to be parents and should lose parental rights.”
I agree completely.
The court should take custody of the child, and hire professionals to counsel the child that they have been indoctrinated with lies. The fact that this has not been done is simply a disgrace.
The court has complete power to act on behalf of the welfare of the child, and they have abdicated their duty based on antiquated prejudices in favor of women and against men.
Here’s one from yesterday:
Allergic Mother Loses Attempt to Prohibit Kids’ Contact With Cat
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2009343/posts
The title is false—instead of cat, it should be dad
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.