Tips for going to court

[Ash]

Add your tips to other members here. My main one is:

Never say anything negative about the Ex! Especially to Cafcass. They are not interested in who is right or what she has done - what they want to see is that you are a good parent. And a good parent is supportive of a good relationship with the other parent. If your ex is negative about you (even making false allegations) then that will highlight her as hostile to being supportive of a relationship with the other parent. Which, at final hearing, can do you some favours. So don't despair.

The mantra is "I just want my child/children to enjoy happy loving relationships with both parents and both families".

Credit for that mantra - given to me - goes to many other Dads who negotiated the court system.

 

[Smiffy]

Stay calm. Don't agree anything at first hearing - let it go to final hearing.

 

[proud_dad]

Expect and prepare for the unexpected. Be psychologically strong, because the family court and all that it entails has been set up to preserve the status quo of the resident parent.

Good luck.

 

[Box house]

I have been in the family court 5 times and all 5 judges whether they have come across as difficult , have always been fair , and to reaffirm what ash says
only talk about the welfare of the children the judge is NOT INTRESTED IN THE ISSUES YOU AND YOUR EX HAVE , the judge is looking at the welfare of the child/children , and finally in this land by law ,as a parent you have a right to see your children.

 

[InvisibleIntellectual]

I found one of the best things that I ever said at court was to point out "I am not here for a fight, just fairness"

 

[Box house]

If i may add another , " Every child needs a Mum , but also every child needs a dad"

 

[Ash]

Mine is also - a child needs the stability and security of regular parenting time with both parents.

 

[Mike2017]

A child has the right to an equal loving relationship with both parents, it teaches us this in the SIPP course that court send seperate parents on.

Use their own courses against them to remind the courts of equality

 

[Ash]

A child has the right to an equal loving relationship with both parents, it teaches us this in the SIPP course that court send seperate parents on.

Use their own courses against them to remind the courts of equality

Good point!

 

[DadLad]

Our child isn’t a possession or a puppet, he/she is not a pawn or a weapon. He/she is a little boy/girl who never asked for his/her parents to be separated, he/she needs to feel equally cherished and loved by both parents.

Our Son/Daughter needs to see his/her parents working together as co-parents and getting along amicably. He/she needs to see that broken things can get fixed, maybe not how things was before but in a healthy and stable way for our Son/Daughter and for his/her future.

 

[si7160]

So everyone is clear under the children's act which family law principles are based upon

Contact is primarily the right of the child and not of the parent or any other person. Therefore, parents do not have an automatic right of contact as such.

Hence the SIPP referral to this
Courts look to having positive contact with both parents,
It's easy to retaliate
My cafcass ( it wasn't used in the end )
Safeguarding letter
Stated the children should be returned to the father and should live with the father
It is the view of cafass that no further reports are required,
If these are requested then the conclusion of these will be the same
The children should live with the father
I have no idea what the mum said but clearly it didn't have the desired effect
I refused to discuss my ex and stated I would talk about the children and their needs , including spending time with their mum,
Cafcass wanted further restrictions on her time with the children and I stated the children's wishes are to spend regular time and I would be following this

 

[Ash]

Do they still have the word contact in the Childrens act? I thought it was updated at the same time Child arrangements orders came into force. Need to read it - maybe they only updated parts of it.

 

[si7160]

The precident was set
Contact with their parents is the absolute right of a child (M v M (Child:Access) [1973] 2 All ER 81, and W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 999). In addition to that principle art.7 & 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child provides that a child has a right to know and be cared for by his/her parents

The term contact custody has been replaced by child arrangements and child relationship but I am not aware of this being rewritten to child right to relationship as the original term is still used more frequently because of case law precident and quoting this
Whilst the terms contact access custody have been replaced through child arrangements, the UK govt website https://helpwithchildarrangements.service.justice.gov.uk/
Uses the term "regular contact with their parents"
( Putting your children children first)
I don't like the term myself and only use in this context

 

[si7160]

The word involved or involvement is being used aspects of the children's act
Now , but I don't know how this links into the family law aspects,

 

[Ash]

This is what I was thinking of - the Childrens and Families Act 2014 - amendments of the Childrens Act 1989

3In the title of section 8 for “Residence, contact” substitute “Child arrangements orders”.

It doesn't help that they still use the word contact even though they've replaced it. Eg here

(6)In subsection (6)(b) (person may apply for variation or discharge of a contact order if named in the order)—

(a)for “contact” substitute “child arrangements”, and

(b)for “the order.” substitute “provisions of the order regulating arrangements relating to—

(i)with whom the child concerned is to spend time or otherwise have contact, or

(ii)when the child is to spend time or otherwise have contact with any person.”

Spend time or "otherwise have contact with". That makes it sound like "contact" is only indirect contact if it's not "spends time with"! So the word is being misused by lawyers.

Children and Families Act 2014

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[Ash]

Still trying to find a load of stuff from 2012/2014 after the Family Justice review - a lot seems to have been forgotten or swept under the carpet, but I distinctly remember there was supposed to be an amendment that said "regular and significant time with each parent" and a focus on PR.

Found this though, which is a useful document and I'll add it to resources

Sets out everything someone needs to know about the process of a Child Arrangements application, including all the terminology.

This also says "Spends time or otherwise has contact with"

Practice Direction 12. Also some useful points in there for anyone applying to court to quote if necessary (especially if long delays) about delays being harmful to the child and "overriding objectives"

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/family-justice-reform/pd-12b-cap.pdf

 

[si7160]

Child arrangements terminology has changed agreed but the term contact is still used for the legal right of the child to see the parents because of the wording of the case law as mentioned before ,
I don't use contact in any other context and correctly use the terms spends time and arrangements ( generally I use the reference of mums time in my case as even this implies not equal )
The term live with and spends time with is supposed to be better,
What would be better is all arrangements should be with live with live with orders unless there are specific child safeguarding issues
Without going into details my case falls into that in that the consent CAO was offered on live with spends time basis as a live with live with order was likely to raise questions by the court and not acceptable to the court

 

[Ash]

Yes it's annoying that lawyers still use the term contact so much. I remember the mood around the time of the change - that the change in terminology and one "Child Arrangements order" would be less divisive. The whole thing needs an overhaul to get all the terminology updated.

 

[si7160]

Totally and they need to be consistent across the statutes
It's a archaic system at best

 

[Ash]

It is certainly archaic. I am sure most people have the same initial shock reaction as me. You go along, a perfectly normal person with a life and a job and expect respect. And get treated like a suspect! You have no rights. You're not even seen as important as a Mother and ----well I could go on. It's disgusting. No respect for Dads at all.