‘My son was asked ‘What do you consider to be your main home? The court asked him four more times until he said, ‘mummy’s house’

2008-02-16
By

“Jim Parton, of Families Need Fathers, said that, although children should be listened to, those interviewing them needed to be very skilled to ensure that they did not ask leading questions. ‘With my son when he was asked, aged 5, ‘What do you consider to be your main home?

“He said, ‘I have mummy’s house and daddy’s house’. The court welfare officer then asked him the question four more times and led him by the nose until he said, ‘Mummy’s house’,” Mr Parton said.”

Back in 2005 Anthony Douglas, the head of the UK Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass), stated that children as young as 7 should be allowed to decide which parent they want to live with in cases of divorce or separation. I’m appalled, and am happy to see that UK fatherhood groups criticized this idea.

On a larger level, I think when kids are given too much say over custody arrangements, the result is that parents are afraid to properly discipline or set limits for their teenagers. They’re afraid that if they do so, the child will want to go live with the other parent, who may be enticing them with a sweeter deal. I receive plenty of letters from both divorced fathers and mothers who say their former spouse has done this.

I’m dubious about family courts even allowing children ages 12 or 14 to decide which parent they want to live with. Some children that age have the maturity to make a good decision, some don’t. Also, kids can be easily manipulated and bribed, not to mention alienated or poisoned by one parent or another.

The story from July 2005 is below. Thanks to Steve Bayliss.


‘Let 7-year-olds choose between their parents’
The Times, July 23, 2005
By Alexandra Frean, Social Affairs Correspondent

CHILDREN as young as 7 should be allowed to decide which parent they want to live with in cases of divorce or separation, Anthony Douglas, the head of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass), has said.The “wishes and needs” expressed by children, and not their parents, should be the starting point for settling residence and contact disputes, he said.“Most children over the age of 7, 8 or 9, depending on their emotional development, will have a very clear view of what they want to happen. That view should stand unless there are safeguarding issues or some other overriding welfare issues.“Children, when trusted and empowered, usually tell the truth. They will have thought about these issues very deeply. With their parents separating, they will be in a situation they don’t want to be in — they won’t have voted for it.“They will tell you what they want to happen. That should be your starting point,” Mr Douglas told The Times.Mr Douglas emphasised that, ideally, children should spend time with both parents, but should be allowed to decide who to live with most of the time.He acknowledged that asking children was difficult, but said that the real test of whether parents wanted what was in their children’s best interests was whether they would allow their children to have a say.

Father’s groups reacted angrily to Mr Douglas’s comments, saying that they would be bound to favour mothers in disputed custody cases. Tony Coe, of the Equal Parenting Council, said that it was for parents to decide what was in children’s best interests. “Children should not be given the option to opt out of one parent any more than they are allowed to opt out of school or going to the dentist,” he said.

Matt O’Connor, a spokesman for Fathers4Justice, said that Mr Douglas’s approach represented a gross abdication of responsibility on the part of Cafcass, which was set up in 2001 to co-ordinate the representation of children’s interests before the courts. “It could leave children feeling very guilty if they felt they had been responsible for driving one parent or other from their lives,” he said.

Both organisations said that allowing children to decide would favour the parent with care at the time of the contact dispute, usually the mother, as there was a risk that she could poison the child’s mind against the absent parent, usually the father. (more…)

Fathers & Families: Advocacy for the Child-Father Bond
Fathers & Families is a non-profit organization advocating for the right of every child to have two parents. Fathers are an essential part of a child’s life–divorce or separation should not change this. www.FathersandFamilies.org
3 views

  • Robert Stevens

    There is a worldwide bias against fathers and men, I don’t expect that to change overnight and I don’t expect it to change until men get up and start putting massive pressure on the politicians. Once a politician gets educated to the fact, that he will either vote for reform or lose his cushy little job, they will straighten up And make no mistake, it take a whole lot them losing those jobs and then comes the next hurdle.
    Once we get politicians who will obey the will of the people and pass these laws. We will then have to avidly enforce them. A lot of women and lot of government terrorist, are going to say” you can’t make me do that !” , it will take putting a whole lot of them in jail to make them understand that, yes you will do it and and yes we will make you do it. It won’t be easy, we will have to hold people accountable , who have never been held accountable. I forsee a lot of tears and a lot crying , when these people have to obey the new laws that protect the rights of fathers and men.
    Even if we started in earnest, tommorow, it will take years and I am not sure some of the societies of the world have that kinda time. A lot of societies are hanging on the brink of collaspe , because of the destruction of the family unit and may not last long enough for reforms to have an effect. Those societies will get rid of this God awful racket, but it willl be men with guns that make it happen and those responsible will won’t have to fear losing their jobs, they will have to fear losing their lives, because of the evil they have done and the millions of people they have harmed.
    There will be no mercy for them, that suits me fine, but…. a lot of innocent people may be hurt or killed as result. And that I have a problem with.
    Maybe that is something we need to make those who want the status quo to remain, need to be made aware of. We can do this the easy way or the hard way.

  • Dustball

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    — Thomas Jefferson

    The time is fast upon us to reclaim, for our children and ourselves, the liberty and freedom our founders fought so hard and long. Liberty and freedom which we have allowed to slip from our grasp and into the hands of our oppressors.

    A new revolution must come, and come soon, or we will forever loose the right to call ourselves a free and just people. For if we should we fail in the endeavor, it is our children that will pay the price.

  • Dustball

    “As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

    Adolph Hitler






Search