The Family

The Crisis for the Family

Ivor Catt, 25jan03

For some fifteen years I researched the following question; “Does a child in England have right of access to its parent?” The answer is, No.

Completely independently, Canadian Senator Anne C Cools researched the issue, and found that, similarly, a Canadian child has no right of access to its parent.

The reaction by those who should have been most concerned was either to ignore the matter, or to actively confuse the issue, or both. That went on for fifteen years. However, there are now signs of interest. This means that there might be a point in going to the next stage in what will be a long, arduous, journey. In the meantime, there will be many deaths. Interest in these primary issues will reduce the number of such deaths, and hasten reform, which will still take many years.

In the same way as it is currently absurd to ask Saddam Hussein to prove that he has no weapons of mass destruction, so it is absurd for me and Cools to have to proceed to try to prove the existence of associated problems, including a parent’s having no right of access to its child.

Having established that there is one glaring hole in the system without which no progress is possible, it is proven that absolutely fundamental problems exist. It should be possible (a) merely to assert other gaps, and (b) to leave it to others who think that a parent’s right exists, to show us where the right is enshrined.

I plan to move to the next step, which is to discuss the reasons why such absolute barriers to progress exist, and conclude what the others barriers will prove to be, and why.

The Reform Procedure.

In order to restore a right which was axiomatic and never considered fifty years ago, overt action is required. This is because we have to reverse the evolved drift away from the natural order towards the present, where a child is the chattel of the State. Today, the State owns all children, and may farm a child out at will with no accountability.

I propose innovative action which will exploit two traditions; that of Habeas Corpus http://www.constitution.org/eng/habcorpa.htm , and that of the Jury of Twelve Men and True. However, before this, it will require new legislation will be required which enshrines a child’s right of access to its parent. What follows will be the mechanism for effecting the enforcement of that right. Interestingly, while writing this, I stumbled on the following quote in http://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm “In family law, a parent who has been denied custody of his child by a trial court may file a habeas corpus petition.” This brings Habeas Corpus closer to our subject than I had thought it was. Further on, the article says; “The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important check on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."” You can see that the principle circles around the issue I am discussing. You will also see the importance of whether a right is a “federal constitutional right” or not. Fathers’ failure to appreciate that whether a right exists or not is absolutely disastrous, and this failure has already lost us fifteen years and cost many lives.

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/faqs/detail.cfm/objectID/8A6A5E67-1569-4D84-BC7A5D3F833C63FA tells us that following a Writ of Habeas Corpus, the decision on whether someone has been wrongly detained is made by a judge.

What is a writ of habeas corpus?

Defendants who want to challenge the legality of their imprisonment -- or the conditions in which they are being imprisoned -- may seek help from a court by filing an application for what is known as a "writ of habeas corpus.

A writ of habeas corpus (literally to "produce the body") is a court order to a person (prison warden) or agency (institution) holding someone in custody to deliver the imprisoned individual to the court issuing the order. Many state constitutions provide for writs of habeas corpus, as does the United States Constitution that specifically forbids the government from suspending writ proceedings except in extraordinary times -- such as war.

Known as "the Great Writ," habeas corpus gives citizens the power to get help from courts to keep government and any other institutions that may imprison people in check. In many countries, police and military personnel, for example, may take people and lock them up for months -- even years -- without charging them, and those imprisoned have no avenue, no legal channel, by which to protest or challenge the imprisonment. The writ of habeas corpus gives jailed suspects the right to ask an appellate judge to set them free or order an end to improper jail conditions, and thereby ensures that people in this country will not be held for long times in prison in violation of their rights. Of course, the right to ask for relief is not the same as the right to get relief; courts are very stingy with their writs.

This will not suit our case, since the wrongful “detention” in our case has been effected by a judge, in cahoots with other experts and alleged experts, and the new judge is guaranteed to side with the prior judge and his “experts”. The present exercise is needed because judges as a community have proved persistently incompetent in this matter and damaging to children’s interests, so we have to revert to the judgement of a jury of non-professionals. (Sloss has said recently that 40% of fathers lose all contact with their children within two years, so the Head of the Family Courts has asserted her judges’ incompetence in this matter. Habeas Corpus is designed to deal with cases where a court is incompetent in the matter of imprisonment.) This is the core reason why we have juries, that the professionals cannot be trusted. Thus, we need a modification of the concept, such that a jury of twelve men and true will decide whether the detention of the child, ordered by a judge in defiance of the child’s wishes, must be overruled. That is, a jury will decide whether the Family Court Order(s) should be deemed invalid.

.

x