Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

Anon 1109/1600/1735 That absolutely demonstrates the argument I made below and on various other cases in the last few years that many judges seem not to understand the 'paramountcy', or resent such an imposition on their power to decide. I would be surprised to be told that the judge produced a well-reasoned argument, that would convince most disinterested people, why the child would be brought up in a, first, loving, and competent environment that would on the balance of probabilities give him/her a more pleasant childhood. And the same obligation should be upon the Soc Services, which similar cases have shown, hate being 'defeated', when their 'victory' must depend absolutely on the best outcome for the child.
And Anon at 0815 is equally grotesque: 'It's just a game/fight; you know the rules and, if you don't like them, don't play.' But the 'you' disguises the fact that the one who is the centre of the case is a child, who has no funds and is only recognised through an intermediary. If a really criminal destitute adult was being threatened with detention or similar, their defence would be funded by the State. Family Court judges seem still to be in the Victorian age: your children belong to you and, short of beating them (only recently a crime), you can keep them in really nasty circumstances.
Anon at 1313 shows it's not just the judges with this attitude: a mere 'fingers crossed' solution for the child is to be preferred because it's 'a lot cheaper'!

Your details

Cancel