Judiciary publishes guide for litigants in person

The government should in agreement with the MOJ set up a proper website taking Lip through the various stages of dealing and making applications and how to present it in an orderly fashion acceptable to the Court without the frills and pomp of how a solicitor would present it using terminology and latin phrases which can easily be simply translated in a format all can understand.

More people will have a go as legal costs have gone beserk and the industry will implode at some point because the ordinary person simply will not be able to afford legal advice and help. It's about time rates were reviewed to keep business rather than sit there with an "open for business sign" at the eyewatering rates some firms and Counsel charge.

The world has changed why does the legal profession think it can stay the way it is? The Courts have obviously found more and more people having a go hence why they are giving some advice.

I am all for the self represented person having as much guidance as possible available to them - provided the judiciary consequently acknowledge this fact and offer them a proportionate amount of latitude.

I often hear judges pleading for solicitors to come back into the small claims process but it is difficult for a client to appreciate that nine times out of ten they are better off acting alone so as to put them on an equal footing, having a solicitor represent them would actually be a disadavantage.

The only comfort is that LJ Jackson has now indicated that delay and breaches of procedure should not be tolerated by judges - hopefully this will add some respect back into the court and its orders, which many treat as just objectives rather than targets, to the prejudice of the other side.

Unless the courts heed Jackson, there will be a melt down.

Who needs lawyers when there's a 16 page booklet. Luckily it's pretty basic stuff like making your own application for injunctive relief ! Hopefully there's a follow up booklet "How to make your own application for Habeas Corpus". Hope these download onto Kindle.

On that point here is a largely unknown idiots guide which was produced for litigants and solicitors.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol

Rest assured, Kelly, any solicitor who habitually abuses the court's process will be held to account by the court, whether by being the subject of a wasted costs order, or by proceedings for contempt, or by the judge reporting him to the SRA. The libel cases which you mention were obviously not felt by the court to merit any punishment.

As for litigants in person, no amount of written judicial guidance is going to make an unrepresented person understand (a) what the relevant law is, (b) how to be truly objective about the strengths and weaknesses of his case or (c) how to recognise what is germane and what is not. Nevertheless, the attempt made by Foskett J is to be applauded, though it is clearly a sign that the judiciary is very worried about the amount of court time which is being wasted by unrepresented litigants.

Ah file sharing and libel. New year, same old Kelly.

I hope you have this post of yours saved somewhere so you can cut and paste. It would be awful to have to type out the same thing again and again.

Did you also know that a Lawyer is an officer of the court? His first loyalty is to the court? His 2nd is to the Bar Association and you might be third or his bank account or his mortgage or his life style might be next. Lawyers never disclose this fact to clients, that’s a lack of full disclosure and voids any contract you make with one.

The bar association is a monopoly, fundamentally its a union for Lawyers, funny aren't monopolies illegal in any other industry?

Judges were lawyers mostly all part of the bar association, makes it nice and cozy, they all have to eat I suppose and have the big house and the cars and the money, money, money.

As a Litigant in person ALWAYS put the judge(s) on their oath. They are not sitting on their judicial oath. It's a business meeting, a bar association private tribunal where he is no more than an arbitrator between the parties. The oath is an offer of contract and you need to accept it. "I acknowledge and accept your judicial oath of office and on that oath we have a binding contract."
Why because the judge can lie with impunity if he's not on his oath, that's the rules of the private bar association tribunal but on his oath if he lies you've got him cold and he's duty bound to protect you when he's on his oath. He might not like it but that’s the law.

The last three postings neatly illustrate that no amount of written judicial guidance is going to solve all of the difficulties posed by unrepresented litigants.

As for the two cases cited by Kelly:

(a) the claim in Seaton v Seddon was (it appears) pleaded by leading and junior counsel, who must therefore have regarded it as at least arguable. Roth J disagreed, but that does not mean that there was any misconduct;

(b) in Abbey v Gilligan, Tugendhat J went on to say (at [176]) that:

"There is no doubt that in correspondence the solicitors for Mr Abbey invited them to settle for economic reasons on terms more favourable than the merits of the claim justified. However, so long as the existing legal regime for CFAs is in place, it cannot be said that claimants or their lawyers who seek the uplift on fees, or any other benefit that the regime offers to claimants or to their lawyers, are seeking a collateral advantage of the kind referred to in the authorities on abuse cited above. They are simply doing what the current regime on CFAs entitles them to do. So I make no finding of abuse on this basis."

The very fact that the claimant's solicitors were acting on a CFA suggests that they genuinely believed (wrongly, as it turned out) that the claim had some merit.Judges moan (rightly) about high costs, but the fact is that most settlements are motivated as much by the costs which are being (or will be) incurred as by the merits (or otherwise) of each side's case.

A good guide for LIPs should focus on basics such a when to speak, what to speak – i.e. identify the issues and how to complete forms. A basic guide cannot teach the law and give examples or working exercises of how it applies. Also a basic guide should cover elements such as the fact that legal costs must be paid within the period allowed or if the order is silent within the default period, that disclosure means exactly what it says, that being in Court without legal experience or knowledge is not an excuse but a circumstance which should be considered, etc.

Recently I heard a LIP say that she has little legal knowledge and that the other party should have tried harder to make her comply with a disclosure order. This was after two pieces of correspondence demanding specific documents were addressed to her.

It has to be all about the basics as the more complicated stuff should be left to the LIPs own drive.

Well now lets have an idiots guide for the lawyers [and especially judges - some don't even know they have powers to require undertakings] - some of them really need it.

My experience is that it is the lawyers that flout the rules and procedures etc even writing to judges behind the other party's back.

When a Mother sends a text to her child and gets 28 days jail and a solicitor also a Mother sends private documents disclosed under order to a third party gets nothing - it tells you something smells?

Thankfully legal aid will no longer be available for lawyers and as LJ Munby once said something along the lines of getting to the heart of the matter a lot quicker when the parties are not represented!! Maybe he will turn out to be a better President than his predecessor the legal aid campaigner LJ Wall.

Glad we keep you entertained, faithless. You're about 2-3 years behind everyone else so do try to catch up. If you are going to demonise an entire association of individuals then please at least get your 'facts' right. And I suggest you acquaint yourself with the human rights nonsense your bosses have foisted on us. The UN Declaration of '98 is a hoot, in particular.
These are the facts. We, the People are not happy. Free men and women are not happy. Extremely unhappy, as it happens. That would mean the large majority. A consensus. And there are many more of us than you lot. This is seen in the numbers of 'comedians' who are growing quickly in numbers in LAWFUL rebellion against what we perceive to be a corrupt, corporate, and tyrannical State and its dodgy business partners in the City. Every day I am contacted by desperate people who are victims of the institutional corruption and fraud that is modern Britain. I try to help as many as I can FOR FREE! but there are just too many. That's a lot of pain and suffering out there. But then I and my fellows only care about bringing good to the world and we are most definitely not motivated by financial reward.
Start chucking some banksters and traitors in gaol and that might go some way to prove that the State and its minions aren't only interested into beating and bankrupting the peasants to sheep-like compliance with avalanches of arbitrary rules, regulations, statutes, acts etc. The big guys ignore or pay lip service to 'the rules' so why should good, decent people be rushing to tug the forelock? All equal before the law, as I recall.
We are not slaves of the establishment nor servants to foreign investment firms. There has been a monumental breach of trust between the Government PLC and the people it purports to serve. The damage is done. It is irreversible. The experiment in playing God with people's lives has failed....and more worrying for you lot, we are learning. Learning fast. Learning how it all fits together. How it all works behind the closed doors and dodgy handshakes. How to turn it round on the Law industry and beat you into submission with your own corruption and nonsense. Don't forget that the most important court is the Court of Public Opinion, and my goodness are you losing that one badly. "Without public confidence in the judicial system there is no functional judiciary." Note those words from your own corporate Ministry of Justice. ;)
The finale song in Les Mis is "Do you hear the People sing?". You are hearing us sing now - although unlike our French neighbours we are not using guns. The pen is mightier than the sword and you should be grateful you are bleating in the safety of your back bedroom about "comedians" in court and not about lynch mobs kicking down doors.
I draw you attention the Declaration of Arbroath 1325, "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
That is my song. I don't see the comedy in there.
I will remain peaceful and lawful but any respect for the judicial system and the actors in that show went long ago. If we can't manage positive change peacefully together then I suggest you guys get prepared for what will follow behind us. Ball is firmly in your - to coin a phrase - court.
Yeah, I have lost faith too.....

It is a truth universally acknowledged that many LIP's are certifiable.

There will have to be some form of very powerful filter applied to cases brought by the clearly bonkers such as the above contributors so that they are dismissed before wasting judicial time and forcing their opponents to incur costs.

The apocryphal sign hanging over the entrance to the Court of Chancery - "Abandon hope all ye who enter here" - will have to be reversed to face the judges as they enter the court.

Sometimes I despair! Lawyers seem incapable of talking plain english. This guide; to a litigant in person is completely incomprehensible. The title page is understandable by lawyers only. What follows gets even worse. Most litigants in person don't even understand what a litigant is! This is the result of reducing access to the law to the very richest. All lawyers who go along with this acceptance of reduced access should be ashamed of themselves and its about time that we stand up against the continual erosion of client access. Much of this impacts on the poorest members of society. Public access law services have been decimated. We all know that the only people now able to freely access legal services are the rich. Most of their claims are entirely superfluous to the day to day realities of most people. And it goes beyond access to legal services. It also impinges upon the training of lawyers. Most speak completely differently from their clients. Legal training has absolutely no relevance to the day to day issues of the majority of the population. How many people have any money to make or pass on money to other people upon their death? How many people have assets of any value to pass on? Legal training is, in the most part...and has been for many many years, completely irrelevant to the potential clients we have trained to represent. Most junior lawyers are too petrified to say anything and by the time they've made a bit of money and moved into a comfortable existence, they forget what the law is ultimately there for. Lawyers should seriously examine their consciences and realise that they do have power to change government policy!! Try and make an effort to do so rather than being satisfied with smug comfort!

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that many LIP's are certifiable.

There will have to be some form of very powerful filter applied to cases brought by the clearly bonkers such as the above contributors so that they are dismissed before wasting judicial time and forcing their opponents to incur costs."

Wow! I would love to see your evidence to support your absurd claim in that first sentence, Sir.

I recall a quote from Ghandi, "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." Sounds like you're still at stage 2, moving into stage 3.

If you work in the law industry, Sir, you are a disgrace for your unpalatable views. have you considered - through the haze of alcohol fumes, perhaps - that maybe it isn't the Litigants that are at fault but the new corporate law industry that forgets its place in our Society. What is driving the dramatic changes in the law industry? Who does it work for? The true wishes of the People, or the motives of the law industry and party politicians and corporate interests? I don't seem to recall this matter of law reform being put to public opinion. It has however now been put to Public Test and what you are experiencing is the backlash from individuals who are not political or commercially motivated but motivated merely by a human desire for fairness. This new regime has been imposed on us all and is by definition a tyranny.

I would draw you to consider very carefully a section of the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948,
"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law".

This is rooted in our own British history and Constitution.

Any list of inherent human rights will include dignity, freedom, liberty, the individual right to own property, and affordable access to meaningful justice. All of which are under attack by special corporate interests, including the new corporate justice regime who have now wordsmithed our inalienable rights into a means of human bondage to 'The State' and its partners. We have the right to protect and stand for our inherent individual rights as men and women of this country. You and your ilk do not have the right to limit those without our express considered consent. To even attempt to do so is evidence of a deranged megalomaniacal mind at play.

I have evidence in my possession of the new corporate HMCTS and its minions criminally conspiring with other corporate interests, under the guise of 'efficiency' and 'cost saving'. Equality of the Parties, anyone? When one starts asking pointed questions about process and form and publicly challenges those responsible suddenly we are faced with a wall of silence, or lies and forged documents and much passing of the buck. Those involved know exactly what they are doing and the look of fear on their little judicial/corporate faces when they are confronted by a human victim of their criminality would be funny if it wasn't connected with a deliberate and institutional conspiracy, abuse of power, misrepresentation, forgery, larceny, and yes, treason.

We even find 'justice' now being automated by computer with no human involvement. Is that what we are to be reduced to? Dehumanised to the point where we are all no more than printed digits on a commercial ledger? Special Deposits? Is that what is meant by political or judicial progress? Our humanity replaced by barcodes "for efficiency"? Hark back to other historical regimes that did likewise and how those turned out. I am sure Judge Roland Freisler was just as supportive of his own judicial system as many in the Law Society today in this country may be.

One only has to recall the aftermath of the Hillsborough event to see how 'The Justice System' truly works here; and look how the Court of Public Opinion found on that matter.

We know there are good and honourable people still in the Justice System. We know that within the Justice System itself there are internal rebellions taking place. This shows us that it is still not an entirely lost cause and can be salvaged. Its for each Master, Judge, Lawyer, Barrister, Solicitor etc to think for themself and decide if what they are doing is honourable and right - or dishonourable and wrong. Laws can be bad laws, you know. The number of laws in any State is directly proportionate to how tyrannical and dictatorial that State is. Around 8,000 new laws and regulations in the past 2 years alone, I believe?? Speaks for itself.

Its a personal decision and you will have to live the rest of your lives with the consequences of that decision. How much is your honour worth to you? Mine has no price.

I am a man motivated by conscience who believes in equality and true justice therefore the decision was an easy one for me. It is not revolution I seek but merely evolution.

“You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know.”
“How can we judge fairly of the characters and merits of men, of the wisdom or folly of actions, unless we have . . . an accurate knowledge of all particulars, so that we may live as it were in the times, and among the persons, of whom we read, see with their eyes, and reason and decide on their premises?”
― William Wilberforce

Very much to the right...

Find out here about the family reforms sabotaged by DfES civil servants.

This programme of seminal social reform:

was devised and agreed by the judiciary, legal professionals, parenting groups and child development specialists
was accepted and funded by the Government in 2003
was announced by the Government as its flagship in 2004
but was discarded by DFES civil servants - who hoodwinked Ministers - by pretending these reforms were still in progress
The first two documents, set out the formal specifications:

PP - Conf is the 2003 reform submitted to Government - as approved by Ministers but discarded by Whitehall

Project 157 is the 2004 re-submission of that same reform to Government

This 2004 resubmission was made after it transpired that the DfES had thrown away the original 2003 submission (which the DfES was still pretending to work on)

The resubmission, Project 157, was again accepted by Government Ministers, and passed again to the same civil servant, who was again told to get on with it. On 15 July 2004 he again pretended to agree ('Yes Minister') and got rid of the project again - by pretending - again - that this time he was really going to do the job properly ('That was then, this is now'). Then he continued the same pretence. He replaced the agreed reform with something different and, indeed, useless. Meanwhile, as part of this package of deceit, the intended reforms were announced as the basis for the Government's 2005 package - which, of course, had already been killed by his clique within the DfES before it was publicly launched by the rest of the DfES.

Other documents listed under 'History' provide a minute proportion of other official documents recording this tragic farce.

The article below provides a useful summary of events as they unfolded.

CONFIDENTIALITY
- & -
THE SECRET HISTORY of FAMILY LAW REFORM

The ending of confidentiality in the family courts is a welcome forward step. But, of itself, the removal of confidentiality does not alter anything. Its effect is to allow things which are unaltered (the existing legal system) to be observed. Legal process, legal institutions and case outcomes will remain unchanged. In theory, their functioning will be ‘revealed’; in practice, if critics of the system are right, the main observable shift will be from a system which cannot be understood because it cannot be seen, to a system which can be seen – but still cannot be understood , because it borders on the incomprehensible. This vista may in due course provide a basis for a more-informed debate. Eventually the plans announced by Ms Harman might become a prelude to the elaboration of constructive proposals.

Thereafter, perhaps work might start – on a problem which has already been solved.

The seminal reforms, which everyone seeks, have already been devised, agreed, announced, funded - and passed for implementation by the Government in 2003. They still lie fallow.

These same reforms would already have introduced the long-overdue new model for the family courts. These measures, endorsed by the legal profession at senior level and approved by the Government, were killed in Whitehall without Ministerial knowledge. The blueprint remains in existence – fully articulated, fully-costed, fully-detailed and fully-endorsed, with an agreed management team geared to deliver the requisite procedural changes within nine months from start-up.

The suborning of this agreed professional reform is documented, beyond gainsay, in the professional journals; in the broadsheets; in Ministerial correspondence; in judicial pronouncements; in departmental records, letters and email; and in Hansard. Perhaps Ms Harman should be told.

DIVIDED RESPONSIBILITIES

How could a programme of orderly change supported by the High Court judiciary and endorsed by the Government simply ‘go missing’ in Whitehall? The June 2004 Green Paper, Parental Separation, expressly announced these reforms and the underlying principles on which they were based. Parliamentary time was set aside for the Children and Adoption Bill 2005 to enact them.

But, without Ministers knowing, the Green Paper had been subverted before it was published. The Children and Adoption Act 2006, designed to deliver the new procedural machinery, was stillborn. The meaures it was intended to enact had been killed by Whitehall officials three years before.

The history of this misadventure is bound up in the fate of the seminal NATC Early Interventions pilot project. On 8 October 2003 the detailed proposals for this project were submitted to Whitehall, after 8 years in development, on a wave of unprecedented professional support. As recited in Family Law 835 (November 2004) the project had the written approval of the President, High Court Family judiciary, the Family Law Bar Association, leading lawyers, parenting groups and - vitally - the leading child development consultants. It was no surprise that, in October ‘03, the NATC EI project received Ministerial approval from the DCA’s Lord Filkin. The funds to implement this flagship project were located in the DfES. EI was passed to the DfES for implementation.

A DEPARTMENT OUT OF CONTROL ?

In accordance with usual timescales, the inaugural meeting of the DfES Design Team to process the new measures happened some five months later, on 17 March 2004. The Team’s chair was Mavis Maclean CBE. It was at this stage that finely-honed NATC EI template should have been translated into institutional practice.

But, by that stage, the EI reform had already been utterly destroyed. Work on the EI project was stopped before it started. The project was stifled pre-birth. Neither Mavis Maclean nor (with a single exception) anyone else on the Government's Design Team had significant knowledge of the NATC EI project. The Design Team was not told about it. Scrutiny of the 17 March 2004 minutes confirms the NATC Early Interventions project was not mentioned - then or later. Nor was the NATC. Nor was the Early Interventions project. The EI project was never discussed. The Design Team jettisoned 8 years of specialist development work, without being aware of it, starting its labours anew, from scratch, on a blank sheet of paper. On 19 April ‘04 it emerged that the NATC EI documentation had been 'mislaid' by the DfES before the Design Team met. On 29 April ‘04 it transpired that the EI documentation was never read.

Appointments to the DfES Design Team had been on the basis of hand-picked ignorance of the NATC EI principles. But, since EI was then a dominant topic in family law, this meant that those on the DfES Design Team knew little of the practicalities of family law litigation. The Design Team's novices had their work cut out merely to arrive at an approximate understanding of what the existing legal system was – and, in due course, that was re-rolled out, instead, as the finished project. This was the misbegotten Family Resolutions project interposed for EI. Since this new Family Resolutions system was all but an identical to the existing legal system, in proportion as it was rolled out, Family Resolutions disappeared.

NEW ALCHEMY: GOLD INTO BASE METAL

Two officials were involved in the Whitehall process of substitution, one from CAFCASS (a Mr Brian Kirby) and the other a DFES "child protection" specialist (a Mr Bruce Clark). The latter had sole charge of the EI project in Whitehall, within the DfES, during the crucial period from October ‘03 to March ‘04 - when EI went in, and Family Resolutions started to come out. This individual knew nothing of significance about Private Law family law disputes. He assumed that the law was what everyone would like it to be, which is the opposite of what it actually is. To his DfES way of thinking (and he declined advice) it followed that the framework which the NATC EI project would have implemented was already in force. So the EI project was superfluous. And, by the same token, the benefits of the EI project could be announced (without the trouble of actually doing anything) as ground-already-made-good: as a platform on which the other Green Paper proposals could be built. These measures, similarly founded on nothing, have also disappeared along with the DfES flagship of Family Resolutions itself.

Mr Clark applied a well-worn Whitehall adage: ‘It is truth universally acknowledged that the best way to take control of a project is to get rid of anyone who knows anything about it’. In order to achieve this own-goal, Mr Clark dispensed with the EI project originators and anyone who had meaningful involvement with it. He set up the Mavis Maclean's uncomprehending Design Team to have a go at ‘whatever the project was’ in this area. This is a direct quote. He colluded with CAFCASS to swap EI for the Fam Res spoiler wanted by CAFCASS. But ‘Family Resolutions’ was not a project. It existed merely as a two-word name. It was a CAFCASS idea - to start thinking of an idea - to do something. It is probable the Fam Res proposal had not generated one side of A4 prior to its substitution as the official 'reform' project slated for national roll-out.

An awkward problem throughout the process of substitution, from October ‘03 up until the project’s launch and incipient demise as Family Resolutions in September ‘04, was that the approved project was actually EI. For months the lead civil servant, repeatedly put to the point, issued misstatements and false assurances to Ministers and legal professionals that he was still progressing the measures and principles in the NATC EI project. He said that the same project was being carried forward: only the name (‘Family Resolutions’) had been changed. These same assurances were relayed by Ministers to the House and to the Press. Both were misled. The mistake was embodied in the June 2004 Green Paper. Family Resolutions, which was never more than a spoiler, duely sank without trace at the moment of launch. Mr Bruce Clark (who seems to have previously indulged in a similar escapade relating to another family law sector) was later subject to an ‘internal investigation’ by his Permanent Secretary, Sir David Normington, who cleared him of all wrong-doing on 19 September 2005[1].

THE FUTURE ?

The upshot of these events is that both departments – the DCA and the DfES – are now unsighted. When the DCA passed the NATC EI project to the DfES in late 2003, it relinquished control over proposals to remodel the family court system – so much so, that DCA officials have yet to hear, for instance, that Family Resolutions has failed. For three years now, the DCA has countered representations on the EI/Fam Res fiasco with the response that it is not worth letting DCA Ministers (for instance, Harriet Harman) know about it. Family court reform is now a DfES responsibility.

But the DfES was never interested in the workings of the family courts. It is not something it knows about. Its officials do know what happened to Fam Res and EI, but to put things right would be to admit that things have gone wrong. The upshot is a ‘closed-ranks’ DfES strategy to prevent the restarting of useful work. Departmental damage-limitation succeeded to the extent that the next DfES Minister (there have been several) had no inkling that anything was wrong until he first presented the Children and Adoption Bill to Parliament on 12 October 2005. He did not know that his Bill had been voided of significance three years before by the DfES destruction of the EI project.

Thereafter, Whitehall-funded research (RR720) on the history of the Family Resolution debacle, conducted by the obliging Professor Trinder, similarly contrived to turn a blind eye. The Constitutional Affairs Committee, which deliberated on Section 8 reforms and the fate of the NATC EI project from Oct ‘04 to February ‘05, was likewise stage-managed by Whitehall staffers. The prime witness (the NATC) was not called. The DfES enterprise to obliterate the prospect of useful change in the family courts engineered by Mr Clark (perhaps inspired principally by ignorance, albeit self imposed) has at this writing been entirely successful.

The problem of ‘what to do next’ is rather delicate. The wheel, after all, has already been invented. There is no pressing need to waste decades, and billions of pounds, trying to re-invent family law reform or tinker at the margins. A modest first step may be to put Harriet Harman in the picture. Everything above will be news to her.

12 October 2006 - Consensus

This history of dire mismanagement is explained away on various conflicting grounds. All are bogus. First, it is said that Fam Res is an ‘adaptation’ of the NATC EI project. This is untrue. The two projects are opposites. Second, that the NATC project was replaced after a period of ‘consideration’. But the EI project was never considered. The papers were merely thrown away. Third, that the EI project was not designed for the British judicature. But it was designed for, by and with, British legal experts and British judges. Fourth, that the EI project never existed. Fifth, an odd red herring, called the ‘Florida project’, is wheeled into uncertain play. But there was no Florida project. And so on.

http://www.mensaid.com/flr.htm

However one looks at the future of divorced couples and their children logic and research is on the side of joint custody as the presumptive first choice. As a society, we must move into the next century armed with realistic custody practices that protect the documented needs of children. Continuation of the defacto presumption for sole custody simply, will not do. The movement for presumptive joint physical custody is a human rights issue and no child should ever be denied their human right to know and love two care-giving parents (except, obviously, in abuse situations). Second, no parent should be denied his or her parental rights (i.e. human rights) without conclusive evidence that the exercise of those rights is destructive of the child. The only way joint physical custody will ever work is with a legal presumption of contact for both parents after separation or divorce and if a resident parent refuses to allow contact, the standard procedure for all courts must be on the first occasion to order a community punishment order, which if broken or contact is refused for a second time must be followed by a jail term and custody being reversed. What is clear from the available evidence is that children in joint physical situations have a much better prognosis for positive post-divorce adjustment (Coller 1988; Doll 1995; Bauserman 2002). In addition to the research concerning child adjustment there are other factors that indicate a rebuttable presumption for joint physical custody is preferable concerning:

Lower divorce rates;

Children are more successfully adjusted overall;

There is less child abuse in joint physical custody situations;

Parents with joint physical custody are less litigious than parents in sole custody;

Parents with joint physical custody are more likely to comply with financial child support obligations;

Joint physical custody benefits both parents and both sets of grandparents;

Parents in joint physical custody are more satisfied with the custodial arrangement, even if they initially disagreed with the custodial decision

Children want Joint physical custody because it allows them to continue their relationship with both parents.All of the studies that sought the views of children indicates that while they would prefer the intact family of origin, they are satisfied with joint physical custody and value the opportunity to continue their relationship with both parents. In Deborah Luepnitz's (1982) work for example, nearly all the joint physical custody children were content with the arrangement. These children echoed the sole physical custody children in responding to the question, "With whom would you have wanted to live after the divorce?" by saying, "With both." Not only were joint physical custody children not confused by the arrangement they were able to cite specific advantages in the two-household lifestyle. They described their arrangement as "more fun, more interesting or more comfortable." A more recent Australian study adds weight to the view that children are better off spending equal time with both parents after divorce. The study is one of the first in Australia to look at how children feel about spending time with their parents. When they were asked how parents should care for children after divorce, the most common answer was "half and half" or "equal." Half also said they wanted more time with their non-resident parents (Parkinson, Cashmore & Single 2003). In a research review Kelly (1988) summarizes children's own descriptions:

· The children continue a daily life with both parents, and they consequently don't become strangers to each other.

· The children feel that it is "Just": neither of the parents is favoured.

· The children are less likely to feel guilty and/or to miss his father.

· The children get to experience that they are loved and important to both parents, which strengthens self-confidence.

· The boys continue to have a father as a role model for identification.

· For small children with frequent changes they can experience that they still live with both parents (this type of contact seems to be best for very young children with their fragile, still-developing emotions.

· There is no risk that contacts with either of the parents will cease in the teenage years.

· It can feel good to "have a rest" from one of the parents (especially for teenagers).

· A divorce is not experienced as a devastating loss, because the child has not lost any love and important person from their daily life (p 133).

References

Coller D.R (December 1988). Joint Custody: Research, Theory and Policy. 27(4) Family Process pp 259-269. Doll B (14 June 1995). American Psychological Association. Preliminary Summary: Empirical Research Describing Outcomes of Joint Custody. Washington DC. Bauserman R (2002). Child Adjustment In Joint Custody Verses Sole-Custody Arrangements: A Meta-Analytic Review. 16(1) Journal Of Family Psychology. Kelly J. B (1988a). Longer-Term Adjustment In Children of Divorce: Converging Findings and Implications For Practice. Journal of Family Psychology. 2: 119-140. Luepnitz D. A (1982). Child Custody: A Study of Families After Divorce. Lexington Books: Massachusetts. p 46 & 47. Also see Luepnitz D. A (1986). A Comparison of Maternal, Paternal, and Joint Custody: Understanding the Varieties of Post-Divorce Family Life. Journal of Divorce. 9(3): 1-12. Note: 5 Family Law Report (1979) at 2395. Parkinson P, Cashmore J & Single J (2003). Adolescents' Views on the Fairness of Parenting and Financial Arrangements After Separation. Faculty of Law, University of Sydney

I do not know if you have read the story below but it is about both parents being given a legal right to contact after divorce. It is good news but a legal presumption on it's own without changing how the system operates will make very little if any real difference for any father who has a vengeful EX.

A legal presumption for both parents is only part of what is required. It must come hand in hand with the Early Interventions project because that makes both parents agree at the very start of a divorce to frequent and continuous contact in the best interests of their children. However, the new parenting plans include a box to tick for cases that include claims of domestic violence. Given the Governments onesided view on domestic violence, the new guildlines in the sub act committees response to the report called making contact work are going to be used under the pretence of protecting children to exclude any father who has a claim made against them from having any contact whatsoever with their children. This is despite the fact that the NSPCC found that mothers commit 60% of child abuse and real fathers only did 9% with 31% being carried out by step-fathers or live-in boyfriends.

Surely as far as DV is concerned it is "in the best interest of the children" to give full custody to the father and not put children at a greater risk of abuse with the mother. Girls for example are up to eight times more at risk of sexual abuse from step-fathers and the mothers live in boyfriends. Why do judges do this if they are committed to acting "in the best interest of the children", If the Children's Act is gender free. It has been stated that ‘no contact’ orders are made in less than 1% of cases; and that contact is ordered in more than 99% of cases. This statistic does not bear on the key issue: how much contact is ordered in the 99% of cases where contact is ordered. Records have never been kept on this topic. Overwhelming anecdotal evidence points to a general withholding of overnight contact in contested cases, with orders of a few hours a fortnight a commonplace. None of this makes any sense if Court orders restrict bonding making relationships unsustainable because all kids suffer developmentally with less than 35% contact time. Last year, there were 67,000 applications for contact in England and Wales which cost £426m, However, only half of these contact orders were actually enforced.
If Judges give the welfare of the child paramount consideration and take account of all the facts and circumstances in each individual case before deciding if it would be in the best interests of the child to make a contact order. Then how can any Judge be acting in the best interests of the child not to enforce a contact order. How does that install public faith in the legal system or teach respect for the law If deliberate refusal to obey any court order is contempt of court that can be punished with a fine of up to £2.500 or imprisonment of up to two years.

The Children's Act was made purposely vague to enable judges enough leeway so they could fit the law to each individual case. To demonstrate the range of options open to judges we just need to look at opposing extremes. At one extreme, judges are allowed to give sole custody to the father and to ban the mother from seeing her children. At the other extreme they can give sole custody to the mother and ban the father from seeing his children. Judges can give any combination in-between these two extremes, if they wish. Why do Judges operate at only one extreme of the spectrum.

In an exclusive investigation, Dispatches put judges in the dock and asked why no judge has ever been sacked for incompetence. In fact, there are no records kept of how often judges are getting it wrong, and with what consequences. Dispatches went back through the court transcripts of over 5,000 successful appeals and gathered the opinions of leading QCs, Dispatches revealed for the first time the alarming scale of judicial mistakes that can have devastating effects on those up before the court.

The Government has gone to great lengths to secure immunity and protection from accountability for all professionals acting in official capacities, especially when they use their positions of authority to violate our rights for profit. Local Authorities violate our rights safe in the knowledge that the UK Legal System provides them with immunity from accountability and in return Judges are allowed to be independent of and not accountable to anyone in Government.

FAMILY breakdown is costing Britain £30 billion a year in extra welfare payments, poorer health, lower productivity and higher crime. The financial consequences of the dramatic increase in divorce over the past 30 years were detailed for the first time in a study commissioned by a parliamentary group. It suggests that previous cost estimates ranging from £4 billion to £10 billion have been far too low. The report, The Cost of Family Breakdown, from the Family Matters organisation, says the social consequences of the British "family crisis" are enormous. The report says: "The whole of society is affected. It impairs the health of the nation, reduces the educational achievement of children, increases the crime rate, places a burden on the national economy and a strain on social relationships at all levels.

New international research by Professor Libertad Gonzalez of Northwestern University in Illinois, shows that single mothers are far more prevalent in countries that finance a high level of state benefit provisions. Not unsurprisingly, a quarter of all children in Britain are now brought up by single parent mothers. This is significantly more than any other European Union country. Libertad Gonzalez said Increases in public funded support for single mothers is significantly associated with a higher prevalence of never-married and divorced mothers" in 17 western countries. The relationship between single-parent families and crime is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime.

There is simply no proof that sole residency is in the best interests of children. A fatherless society actually leads to an increase in crime and violence which in turn just happens to feed the lagal system who are all in the top 10% of earners. Who says crime does not pay?

As a matter of principle, I think people in the system must accept accountability when they fail by there own complaints process and the law. The only way I can ever see fathers being able to demand justice is by publishing there case histories on the net as proof that we all have the same problems with the same people.

ATB Dave

Fathers win justice

The People
Sunday 10th October 2004

Campaigners Fathers 4 Justice are to win the battle for access to their kids - after causing mayhem with stunts like Batman at Buckingham Palace. Former minister Frank Field will introduce a Commons Bill this month that ensures children of broken marriages have the right to see BOTH parents. He has the backing of the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, and Attorney General Lord Goldsmith. This means his Bill is certain to become law. Fathers 4 Justice say current laws are weighted in favour of mums, who often forbid them from visiting their children. After Mr Field's Children's Bill is passed by Parliament, parents who block access will face penalties ranging from a £300 fine to three months' jail. Courts will also have greater powers to order that children live with the father rather than their mother when deciding custody. Ex-Welfare Reform Minister Mr Field said: "As a matter of natural justice it is important that fathers see their children. "We are giving children rights of access to both parents rather than treating them as baggage. "If my Bill succeeds we will have met every separated parent's grievance. We must recognise the need of a child to be nurtured by both parents." But he stressed that his Bill was not pandering to the high-profile protests by Fathers 4 Justice activists. Last month Jason Hatch, 32, from Cheltenham, Glos, stormed Buckingham Palace dressed as Batman and spent five hours perched on a ledge. Another dad, David Chick, 37, dressed as Spiderman to scale the London Eye wheel and a crane at London's Tower Bridge. Two others threw purple-dyed, flour-filled condoms at Tony Blair in the Commons. Fathers 4 Justice spokesman Gary Burch said of the move: "This is good news. It goes a long way to addressing the issues. Maybe this will force the Government to put children first." Mr Field added. "It may be that adults cannot bear to live together. But their children have the right to have both of them."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/euro-dads/message/20378

My question to you is this, Why are the Judge sitting in a family court allowed to make judgement on a person that they have no prior knowledge of them or their life, have only read untruth reports by Social Worker who admitted in Court that the report produced for court was not written by them but by another Social Worker, who is then reprimanded by the Judge, who still allows this to be taken as truth. A Judge that basically took the Social Services information as true and correct even though they had not been given the truth. How can that Judge then go on to place a Grand Child up for adoption. How can that Judge then go on to say that they have the deepest sympathy for the father of the child for the life he had when growing up. When that Judge has no Idea of such things.