Did it get harder to keep our children safe?

RAS

Are the children old enough to speak to the court themselves (gillick compliant)?

Guest101

Just so we're clear - because by default i think fathers rights are too limited in this country.

HOWEVER violence against children - oh no, NO NO NO.

So has your ex partner been violent or physically, or mentially/emotionally abusive to your and his kids?

If so, without the gorey details, who has been informed and what remedy has taken place/ will take place.

if No, then why are you changing the contact order?

aileth

freyanneke wrote: »

They would support it, yes. How hard is it to represent yourself in court and what would be the cost involved with that? Would I be able to be heard by the same judge that made the initial order?

Judges take care to explain the whole procedures to litigants in person, as well as the other barrister if there is one as their number one duty is to the court. If you are bringing the application, you need to pay the costs of bring it, few hundred depending possibly, will be less the less hearings you need ofc, but should be able to recoup that with a costs order against the other side if you win. You can request for the same judge but its at the discretion of the judges & court

Guest101

aileth wrote: »

Judges take care to explain the whole procedures to litigants in person, as well as the other barrister if there is one as their number one duty is to the court. If you are bringing the application, you need to pay the costs of bring it, few hundred depending possibly, will be less the less hearings you need ofc, but should be able to recoup that with a costs order against the other side if you win. You can request for the same judge but its at the discretion of the judges & court

I'm not sure if the costs would be so easy to recoup. Normally the losing side pays, because they had an opporunity to settle the matter out of court.

This is to change a court order, something the defendant can not do.

I would think in this case, each side would pay its own costs.

aileth

Guest101 wrote: »

I'm not sure if the costs would be so easy to recoup. Normally the losing side pays, because they had an opporunity to settle the matter out of court.

This is to change a court order, something the defendant can not do.

I would think in this case, each side would pay its own costs.

If the amendment is fought strongly by the respondent and they lose, it could be viewed that costs are oweable to the applicant as the respondent dragged the case on unnecessarily incurring the applicabf costs. If the respondent doesn't act what could be seen as unreasonably then yes 50/50, although nothing is ever so clear cut!

freyanneke_2

Without getting into details, I can say that there was a good reason there is only an indirect contact order.

At this moment I just learned new facts. I guess I am feeling very protective about any access now, esp since we had some worrying written communications during one of the last contacts. Explicitly telling the children not to share with their mother or certain siblings and to single children out and giving them much more than others, forgetting to send presents on time etc. It all has become a quite negative experience.

Some of the children would be old enough to be heard in court, yes. Wouldn't their views be available through Social Services reports and/ or a Caffcass report? If so, would I have to pay for these reports?

I can't really say what action is going to be taken yet. I am still talking to the police and Social Services.

aileth

If the children are fairly old, their views will be taken into account as part of the welfare checklist of the children act. They will decide the case to remove indirect contact looking at the benefits/harm to the child and this will factor in. It'd probably be cafcass who interview them if necessary

freyanneke_2

It is a bit of an awkward situation, cause contact that can be fine for one child, can still effect another sibling that feels flung back into bad flash backs every single time.

RAS

A child of 12 is generally considered old enough to make their own minds up and the judge would be least likely to decide against their views. The court might use video evidence of meetings with CAFCASS.

There was a case last year where two much younger children were considered old enough to express their wishes, even though in the case of one (aged about 5 ) it was the look of complete terror on their face when it was suggested that they might see daddy again that was used in court.

It sounds like the indirect contact needs editing by SS if it is not to cause more trouble in the family.

RAS

freyanneke wrote: »

It is a bit of an awkward situation, cause contact that can be fine for one child, can still effect another sibling that feels flung back into bad flash backs every single time.

Hi

Been there and done that. The youngest had no recall of what had happened (and was not abused) but he nearly killed me so I was very averse to any contact. My response was not mediated because it was pure PTSD.

Father used to create havoc by using contact with bro and by denying all abuse. Made a lot of things very difficult and bro and I still rarely have contact today even though I am now OK.

It sounds like some of the children need help coping with the PTSD?

And at some point someone authoriative outside the family has to explain to the children who do not have problems what PTSD is and a bit about the background.