court - Full custody

honeyD

daska wrote: »

I would suggest that your friend formally request return of any of the kids possessions/ passports and the like if mum took these with her.

The best bit of advice you can give you friend is to be SEEN to be actively considering the children's welfare and actively promoting contact.

Thanks Daska.
She doesnt have the childrens possessions, she left with only her own things.
PWC does promote contact which is the sad thing about it all. He set it up through his solicitor for her to visit every weekend and she just doesnt show. Its sad at times, especially once when the little one wanted his mother because the children dont know where she is.

honeyD

Ugh, not sure whats going to happen now. Ex showed but apparently isnt fighting it.
PWC has to be assessed by cafcass since the children have been in care before. Not sure how this will work out
They have to go back sometime, not sure when.

Honest_broker07

He'll be made to jump through hoops

Meetings via CAFCASS etc, with pressure put on the child to attend by the "nice ladies" from CAFCASS. Meetings between the parents to make arrangements fo contact etc.

I know I was that dad, mind you once mother started to eff and blind at her daughter in a supervised meeting, and after she refused to even be in the same building as me for meetings, I got my RO PDQ.

Oh and if the kids don't have passports get some sorted ASAP, that way she can't get them and use them to stop your friend taking them abroad.

honeyD

Well you see, NRP is one of those who "act motherly" when official people are around... The type to sit next to the kid who is scared of her while SS visit... So cant imagine how she will be if she has to do anything! I know NRP has been offered weekly contact since 6 months ago but has only been twice in that time. I just hope PWC can pull his socks up and get this done quickly.

Found_true_love

Honey, I have acted as a McKenzie friend, I have gone as far as a successful appeal in the Court of Appeal London, before I can give better advice I actually need more information and becuase of the rules of disclosure regarding children cases the information I would require to help you cannot be posted on a public forum, this would have to be done by private PM and with your friends consent.

What happened in court the other day is relevant to giving the advice on what will happen with cafcass.

Does your friend have legal representation anyway?

daska

Honest_broker07 wrote: »

He'll be made to jump through hoops

Meetings via CAFCASS etc, with pressure put on the child to attend by the "nice ladies" from CAFCASS. Meetings between the parents to make arrangements fo contact etc.

I know I was that dad, mind you once mother started to eff and blind at her daughter in a supervised meeting, and after she refused to even be in the same building as me for meetings, I got my RO PDQ.

Oh and if the kids don't have passports get some sorted ASAP, that way she can't get them and use them to stop your friend taking them abroad.

It isn't necessarily the case that the parent and child will be interviewed together. DSD and her mum were never interviewed together. It may depend on the CAFCASS officer and the meetings s/he has with the parents which usually happen first.

Honest_broker07

Daska

I'm just speaking from bitter personal experience.

I was made out to be the bad guy when she lied in court statements, to Social Workers and CAFCASS.

At times I really did feel that all thease people ( all of whom were women ) were conspiring against me, because I'm a male therefore bad.

At one point even her own Barrister advised her to withdraw evidence, and she refused. She told a judge she would produce evidence of assault ( so he refused me access ) she never produced the evidence ( because the incidents never happened ) but later Judges merely followed what the other had said.

daska

I have no doubt that there are times when things go horribly wrong, either because a solicitor isn't as good as they ought to be or because assumptions are made and never challenged. Did your solicitor not think to ask for judge to order that the evidence be provided by a certain date so that you could challenge it?

Found_true_love

daska wrote: »

I have no doubt that there are times when things go horribly wrong, either because a solicitor isn't as good as they ought to be or because assumptions are made and never challenged. Did your solicitor not think to ask for judge to order that the evidence be provided by a certain date so that you could challenge it?

Assumption made not challenged come under the rule

"Qui tacet concentire videtur"

Who does not argue would appear to agree

Its a horrible sneaky little "rule" that courts use to the dissadvantage of the person whom they wish to "find" against

In my case it was dealt with by the sentence

"it was not argued before lunch and they came to a perfectly good order, I am not going to change it now"

Dirty rotten scoundrels:mad:

daska

mmm... yep, exactly... either you 'protest too much' or you protest too little.