Family law

If the judge did not make an error in law or make a decision that was clearly flying in the face of the evidence, I doubt you'd have a chance.

You may feel strongly about the issue, whatever it is, but an outsider might think you are totally wrong/biased.

Why wasn't that pointed out to the judge within statements or hearings before the Order was made?

babyemily wrote: »

The facts are false.

And can be evidenced without doubt? Because that's what makes the difference between a fact and an opinion.

As stated by LNL, why wasn't this pointed out at the time of the hearing?

I find it interesting that this is being posted only a few weeks after Ethan Williams' case was played out in such gory detail in public. In that case, mother and her supporters tried to insist that the "facts" were that father had sexually abused Ethan. Everybody else, including a child psychiatrist, two social workers and two judges came to very different conclusions about the facts. I've found Judge Wildblood's judgements on the case to be extremely well-worded and helpful:

"Another singularly unattractive feature [of the case] is that, by engaging in that publicity stunt, those in the mother’s family who have behaved in this way have ensured that ... the public hear the mother’s side of the story in very full detail. That cannot be allowed to overshadow the following:
i) It was the mother’s choice to behave as she did since 27th May 2015;
ii) The litigation in which the father first engaged two years ago has taken place because it was necessary for him to assert his right to a relationship with his child, Ethan;
iii) There have been three court hearings in which serious allegations made by the mother against the father have been rejected and, following a very high level of enquiry, it has been found that the mother positively invented allegations against the father on two occasions in an attempt to stop him having any contact or relationship with the child.
iv) The father has not at any time embarked on anything like the publicity stunt in which the mother’s family has engaged."

"I have previously described Ms Minnock’s actions in making off with Ethan as ‘utterly irresponsible’. I adhere to those words. It would be patently wrong to suggest that Ms Minnock was so overpowered by protective maternal instinct that she was driven to behave in the way that she did. Her behaviour was manipulative, attention seeking and truculent. It caused immense distress to many. It caused a very large amount of public money to be wasted."

Whilst looking up those comments, I've also found the following which may be helpful for the OP:

"If [Ms. Minnock] had evidence that invalidated past findings of a family court she could have applied for those findings to be considered afresh. Findings of a family court may, if solid reasons exist, be reconsidered since a family court operates in the welfare of children (and thus may review its own factual decisions if good cause be shown)."

That quote and the one above taken from https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/minnock_judgment_24.06.15.pdf . The first quote I gave is taken from https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ethan-williams-15062015.pdf

Also https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/minnock_judgment_24.06.15.pdf includes details of the legitimate options available to people who think the family courts have got the facts about a child's welfare wrong.