Despite reports last May that the secrecy of the family courts may be about to end it appears that top Judges and solicitors are reluctant to a change the multi million pound Family law ‘gravy train’ and family law practitioners and Government are try to sell families down the river

Far from a complete open family court system it is now suggested that these proposals are likely to produce selective opening of the Family Courts with a full reliance on the Judges discretion, as is the case today in most courts. Far from delivering open justice, the proposals are more likely to present selective justice (rich and famous), which actually does nothing to help normal families trapped in the failing system, whose policies and methods are so fundamentally flawed.

This is no empirical evidence there was to suggest children could be damaged by open courts and this systems is working well in Scotland so why not the rest of the UK

None of these people want change so we'll just have to force it on them, must stand up and demand a completely fair and open Family court system.

Nothing less is good enough to address the publics lack of confidence in the family courts to show the courts have got nothing to hide.”

The breakdown of the traditional family is also at the heart of many of society's mostly deeply rooted problems.

Children need contact with both a mother and a father and with extended families to provide the love, care, nurturing and discipline necessary for a happy childhood.

The legal aid bill for child contact family law cases last year was £452 million

These 'family' judges should be able to be seen doing the right thing, allowing the child to be cared for by BOTH parents fairly... This is not happening and needs to be changed as it is ruining loving, caring dads lives.. They are thinking of putting dads names on the net that don't pay CSA, when a lot of them have good reason why they refuse.. Lies to prevent access, little or NO contact, etc, etc.. It goes on and on!! As a judge, if you mess up peoples lives, the you should be accountable.. Shame on you Thorpe!!

Fathers 4 Justice sink to a new low again what a suprise!!

Why should you encourage harrasment.
You are a joke to men and women around this country and you are not doing your children any favours either.

Mac

Its too late for many men. Access to their children has been all but curtailed by biaised judges who do not want to upset the mother.
This is the biggest civil rights injustice there is, and no one gives a fig unless it affects them - hence the need to carry out direct action , much as Greenpeace did when no one was interested in Green Issues.

Judges and Family Court Officials in absolute secrecy fuel litigation between separated couples and use their children to make billions of pounds in a corrupt industry.
With no need for records or proper accounts they carry out their hideous, unaccountable crimes against humanity resulting in the social catastrophe we all witness on our streets today.

Good luck to F4J and any others who have the courage to stand against these state sponsored tyrants. P4p

In order to put something right, you have to understand what is wrong - and, for legal systems, that entails understanding what is wrong with the law .

- the law does not say what everyone thinks it says

- the law does not say what everyone agrees it should say

This the Law as it is Believed to Be:

The Children Act (1989) entitles parents to reasonable contact with their children in the absence of a good reason to the contrary

And this is the Law as it Actually Is:

The Children Act (1989) entitles parents to some contact (at no matter how low a level) in the absence of a good reason to the contrary

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DISTINCTION

These two systems are diametric opposites.

On the system as intended, and as-it-is-believed to be, children get reasonable contact with their children unless there's something wrong.

But, on the system as it is, children can't get reasonable contact with their parents - even if everything is right.

That is, under the existing system, the parent who stops contact has to produce a good reason only if they want to stop absolutely ALL contact.

Hence, no good reason has to be produced to stop almost-all-contact.

As long as there is a vestige of contact - even if it is only two hours a fortnight (or less) - no reason of substance has to be put forward by way of justification. It is just the way things are - the starting point (and, quite possibly, the ending point) of the dispute.

Under the Act and the law-as-it-is, almost-all-contact can be stopped for almost no reason.

The private law provisions of the 1989 Act were brought in to end to contact disputes in private law cases.

And what are contact disputes?

Well... in the wake of a separation, one parent decides to stop almost all contact - for almost no reason.

In other words, as the law stands, the Act has no means of preventing the thing it was set up to prevent.

The History of the Children Act

At this stage you might say,

'That's all very well and good. But you've only spoken about Statute. What about case law?'

I'm afraid that case law does not alter the position.

If you had a pound for every time a family lawyer had already told you that 'every case is different' you would already be rich.

And this adage means exactly what it says.

In the family division, because 'every case is different', case law does not, and cannot, provide a precedent.

How and why this happened is another story, going back to the mid 1980s. But you won't go far wrong by starting from the point that people don't legislate something on which everyone already agrees. The idea that you ought to be able to have reasonable contact, with your own children, wasn't in dispute. It wasn't thought to be a point worth making. So it was never made in the 1989 Act.

So - now we know what's wrong with the family courts.

Everyone thinks there is a presumption of reasonable contact. And everyone believes there should be a presumption of reasonable contact.

We need the Government to replace the bad old presumption of contact with its soundalike, the Presumption of Reasonable Contact - which is what everyone wants anyway.

And, this is what the Government said they would do - in their 2004 Green Paper, Parental Separation.

- and this is what the Government believed they were doing

- and this what they intended to do

But

- without Ministers knowing

- this reform was killed by a clique of civil servants in the DfES in 2003.

Maybe you've already got an inkling of how this happened.

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

If Fathers 4 Justice remained quiet, docile, silent, with a "go with the flow" attitude, then they would be automatically stereotyped as dead-beats, "typical fathers that don't care about their children".

Why is it ok for women to go to every length, including forgery of court orders, perjury, false allegations of abuse against themselves and/or the children, in order to keep the father away, but it is not ok when a father pulls out all stops EXCEPT perjury, false allegations, or forgery of court documents, in order to see the children?

I would much rather have a father that is fighting his hardest in any way possible, LEGALLY, and NON-VIOLENTLY, to see me, regardless if it is by dressing as superheros, showering the Prime Minister with flour, or harrassing Judges.

God Speed to them in their quest to seek justice for themselves AND their children.

The ones in the wreong here, are those that are holding their children back from seeing their fathers for no other reason than vindictiveness or simply to obtain as much money as possible from the father.

Shame on anyone with children, that does not have the best interest of the children in mind. We all must remember, children learn what they live. Would you like your children to grow up to be an exact replica of yourself?

And I personally, would prefer to see children grow up knowing they are loved, treasured, respected, and be able able to speak their minds in defense of themselves, truthfully, rather than walk on anybody in order to get where they want to be.

We all know how it feels to be betrayed by that which we were brought up to believe in.

Yes,

The justice system.

These judges must be accountable to those they are "judging".

For the last two years I have had no contact with my young daughter(aged three). My marriage (my first - and last) broke down after 17months. My wife was married before, and that lasted some 11 months.

During the marriage I was subjected to domestic violence, but ironically this was used against me in the family courts. I had to
defend several spurious allegations of verbal and physical violence, all of which the court has thrown out. However, having won these
arguments in the eyes of the court, I still don't get contact with my daughter, despite paying the CSA.This is because the 'ex-wife' is not happy with contact.

Isn't this a case of the tail wagging the dog, or are the courts to afraid to upset the mother? Either way, the child loses out, by not
seeing her loving father. At Christmas, as you may all appreciate, this was not easy for my daughter and my family. The grandparents,
aunties, uncles and cousins all lose out due the bitter Mother.

Isn't it about time this real issue was addressed by the Government and Courts and there was an automatic presumption of equal contact between both parents when they split or divorce? The real winners of these issues
are the lawyers, who feed upon the carcasses of these broken relationships.

American Men Support Fathers For Justice All the Way.

As a young man, I like children to much to risk having them stolen by the state, I won’t be procreating until fathers are no longer exploited financially and disposed of as people. Am I bitter or wise? Considering the decline in marriage, and the attitude of my male peers, I am most likely the norm. Unnamed sperm donor or faceless bank account? No thank you, I want to be a father.

The court system is there to present the image that something is being done without actually doing anything at all in the hope that the problem (both parents) will go away and leave them alone without there being violence.