Please post the average weekly hours access to your child on this website and shame those who abuse children.
Please add your child / grandchild / sibling / relative here
 |
 |
 |
|
This website is for Nat.'I cannot see or have my child born March 2001 stay over with me in the dignified, regular, unsupervised, and staying arrangement that I have begged my ex partner and her parents to honour.
I was first told I could have 4 hours on a Sunday and 4 hours on a Tuesday, and more maybe in time. Later I was told via her solicitor that I can have 5 supervised day hours a week in a 'take it or leave it' deal.
I have been physically attacked for no apparent reason by my ex partner in my own home (and her home also once, when I went to bathe and put our son to bed) and she was charged by the Police for Affray. I asked the Police not to pursue any charges against her on my part because simply to do so to a partner with whom you have been for seven years is not right, In return I suffer draconian offers of access from her parents. I reply and continue to beg for dignified and regular staying contact for Nicholas to get to know his father properly. Her mother by email tells me, 'Sundays are for OUR family'. Her parents condone Jezebel's unwillingness to do what is in the best interests of their grandchild.
My parents, I, and Nat's siblings (my 3 children from my ex wife not Jezebel) have only the right to apply to the Court for contact. It is now widely known that any court dictated contact will be miserly, minimal and flouted by the mother (50% of cases per Lord Chancellor's Department).
Grandparents and siblings of the parent without care also have no automatic presumption of contact to see their grandchild or half brother or half sister.
I know from experience (of my other children) that without a dignified, willing and mutually agreed arrangement on both sides Nicholas will become a stranger to my family and I. Family separation is difficult enough without this added child abuse that if at all are impossible to correct later.
Our child is too young to speak for himself. A child should equally see both parents and has a right not to suffer Parent Alienation Syndrome (known as 'PAS'), an illness forced upon the child by the parent with care, because that parent wants to prevent and withhold access to punish their ex partner. PAS is not recognised by the Courts.
Her Solicitor whose job according to the Solicitor's Family Law Association, is to respect The Children's Act 1989 and its shared parenting objectives, continues not to consider the 'what is in the best interests of the children' principle, and instead acts for the mother's best interests, condoning the gracious offer of miserly take-it-or-leave-it access. Solicitors on this gravy train, in this case legally aided despite substantial assets, whilst I am not, line their pockets in this clear conflict of interest.
If I say nothing now then my children will be next in line when they have children of their own. They will have to fight for the right of their children to see both parents equally. As my mother says; 'If you have a daughter you will get to see your grandchildren, but if you have a son you very likely will not as we do not, see Nicholas'.
This site is dedicated to the child I am not allowed to see in a proper, dignified, regular and staying arrangement that is in our child's best interests.
Please email me and tell me why this arrangement is NOT in our child's best interests, and tell me your views on all the other children who do not see their 'absent parent' either at all or enough.
If you think at this point that this cannot happen to you, think again!
Please note this access arrangement that I beg for (of 20% of Nicholas's time) is tempered in its potentially equal demands of 50/50 residence by what I know I might get if I have to go to Court ie I ask for a lot less than I would like. It is not right nor fair for Nicholas's Human Rights to accept less access for him to both parents than an automatic starting point of 50/50. The take it or leave it offer is 4% but such minimal contact is all that might currently be offered by the courts for Nat to know his father but it is all I might get if I waste thousands on fighting in a secretly held Family Court at great cost. She gets legal aid, in Nat's name whilst she has a flat and income in her own right and parents who live in a home worth twice that of my parents.
As at November I have not seen my son Nat 11 months and in the four months before that only for times for about an hour each. I have seen Jezebel at other times than with Nat. Once she scored my father's car with her keys and attacked me. Then she turned up out of the blue at my home and attacked me and destroyed my lounge causing damage. Another time she attacked me after I had bathed and put Nat to bed in her home. Now I fear seeing her on her own in case of more violence and in case I am accused of violence. So far in all the occasions the police were called to our home there were no allegations of violence made against me, simply because I have been the victim.
The 'Parental Responsibility Agreement' is not worth the paper it was written on. It has no teeth. The mother, awarded custody in 96% of cases can refuse all contact and cut the father out of the child's life as I have been, ruthlessly and in sheer disregard of her own child's human rights, feelings, pain and lifelong effects of future irreparable psychological damage that she knowingly causes.
A child's right to see both its parents equally is not respected by hearings in the secretly held, English Family Law Courts.
Justice is not seen to be done as mothers flout the Law and parents without care (mostly fathers although not always) are sidelined and pushed out of the lives of the children they love as much as their partners (40% of fathers lose contact with their children after two year, Dame Butler-Sloss, Lord Chancellor's Department). I have lost all contact in 4 months.
Every child must have the automatic and enforced right to presumption of 50/50 shared residence. The child's right to share in the lives of both parents equally must be upheld by imprisonment of the parent who resists, awarding custody to the other, then justice will be done and the current child abuse propagated by CAFFCASS and the Judiciary, stopped in its tracks, as well as the needless gravy train that bleeds families dry of their assets that end up in solicitors coffers.
The Family Law Courts must send the right message. Contemporary Family Law in secretly held courts allow judgements that are to any normal person biased in the favour of the parent with care (in 96% of cases the mother) such that those judgements can be categorised as child abuse as they prevent the child from seeing and developing a proper and meaningful 'relationship' with both parents and both sides of the child's family, equally.
I ask parents without care, to enter the hours currently granted by the Family Courts that they have so that normal right thinking people can judge for themselves if such access is right for our children.
To the few parents with care who allow the other to see and have their children fairly I say thank you. They are the caring and adult ones. They are the ones who will have to support a nation of hurting others.
Current Family Law needs to be rewritten.
Sir Bob Geldoff's Chapter from his book is a worthwhile read if you want to have an insight into all angles of Family Law and child access issues particularly if you fear separation or divorce is near. Prepare yourself!
Your name and email address is used to identify you and to communicate with you from time to time. Your password is to be used for you to tell us to delete/amend your entry at any time. We will email it to you if you forget it.