Family Courts.

I now think that by dragging me back into this dreadful subject, Dave Mortimer has done something very useful. It is interesting to realise that even after all these years studying the subject, I am now be coming to a deeper synthesis, which Robert Whiston may well already understand.

Robert Whiston has been on various government and police committees, and adds an important insight into the problem. I now recollect that I myself have been on at least one government committee.

For decades, no representative of fathers was allowed on any government or similar committee. This remains almost the truth today. Radfem representatives like Stanko are always on these committees.

The Stanko – Catharine MacKinnon ideology is much easier to grasp than the truth, which Robert will try to tell a committee, and for doing which he will be ejected from the committee.

(The Stanko - MacKinnon – Butler-Sloss ideology is that half of women get raped during their lifetime, one quarter of women are assaulted in the home, women are never violent, the reason why fathers want access to their children is in order to batter them and sexually molest them, violence or threat of violence is the way the patriarch maintains control of his family.)

The truth is in contrast very complex.

Men’s representatives struggle to get heard, and to get onto government committees. When there, they try to give information to government officials before they are ejected for confusing the situation – presenting a conflicting story which confuses the one they have already learnt from radfem media. In any case, all the officials are merely passing through, and will be working on something else in a couple of years. Out of the two officials Dave Mortimer finally managed to meet recently, one transferred to working on “hate crime” and the other became a TV presenter. That includes the relevant (passing through) Minister. That is why recently the current Minister when writing to my MP in response to my letter, gave the official government definition of domestic violence, which was copied from radfem websites. He was not long enough in post to analyse where that came from, and whether it was proper. (This definition includes “financial violence” etc.)

Any legislation which tries to stop judges from cutting children off from their fathers will be ignored by judges, who “know better than our MPs”. . Tim Loughton MP says judges are biased against fathers. He is adding an amendment to the current legislation so that “shared parenting” is right at the start of the new law. However, he does not realise when he adds “so long as the child is not in danger”, the amendment will be valueless. Judges will say “the interests of the child come first”, and the child must be protected. Since one quarter of all fathers are violent, any allegation of violence is probably true on the balance of probability, so it is safer to cut the child off from its father.

My approach is not to take the matter out of the hands of judges, courts and social workers, as is currently proposed by “meteorite”, but to force these people to behave.

(Periodically, a meteorite like Matt O’Connor appears in a blaze of glory, and correctly points out that  previous campaigners have achieved nothing in thirty years. He has the new approach, or even the answer. There is of course no point in learning anything from the previous failed campaigners. A few years later he joins the ranks of the failed.)

Only recently I realised that when judges ignore legislation which tries to protect a child’s access to its father, they are breaking the law. This is a new concept, that our judges actually break the law. With this realisation, my proposals of twenty five years ago that rogue judges should be targeted becomes even more reasonable. If a judges exploits the ever present caveat “so long as it is safe for the child” to ignore the rest of the law, he is breaking the law. [Since writing this I realise that in 1994 I already said that the head of the family courts was breaking the law in this matter. See . She cited previous legal precedent to justify going against the new law, which had been specifically passed in order to overcome previous precedent. The judiciary placed themselves above Parliament.]

Now we realise clearly that a judge who breaks the law should find no hiding place. His children, wife and neighbours should be told about his illegal behaviour, and also told about any scandals in his life. They must also be told the statistics on the outcome for children of divorce treated the way he treats them. When we went after Judge Munby, we forced him to get the Plymouth man out of jail. A judge who decrees a court order and then refuses to enforce it is bringing the law into disrepute. Everyone, including his children, needs to be told of this.

I am not really concerned about whether excluded fathers, when targeting judges and social workers, should avoid themselves breaking the law. They are, after all, involved in an illegal framework created by judges and social workers.

Ivor Catt   15 January 2013.