http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1917291/Good-fathers-'powerless-against-vengeful-mothers'.html


Fathers 'powerless against vengeful mothers'

By Tom Peterkin
Last Updated: 11:33PM BST 01/05/2008

Decent fathers are left powerless to see their estranged children if vengeful mothers are determined to prevent access, a senior judge has admitted.

Lord Justice Ward attacked child access law after presiding over a case that saw a “vicious” mother falsely accuse her ex-husband of sexually abusing their child.

He spoke out after telling the father that there was nothing he could do to help him re-establish contact with his daughter after his ex-wife turned her against him.

The man’s 14-year-old daughter, who cannot been identified, had been influenced by a “drip, drip, drip of venom” from his ex-wife, who wanted to deny him his paternal rights.

Lord Justice Ward said the case was bordering on the scandalous but the court was compelled to act in the interests of the child.

Because of her mother’s “viciously corrupting” influence, it would cause the teenager too much distress if she spent time with her father, he said.

In London’s Civil Appeal Court, Lord Justice Ward said: “The father complains bitterly, passionately, and with every justification, that the law is sterile, impotent and utterly useless.
”But the question is 'what can this court do?’ The answer is nothing.”

The parents were briefly married in the 1990s and their daughter was a baby when they parted.

Lord Justice Ward said it was “impossible” that the girl could remember being abused and it was obvious it was something she had been told and believed.

In 1997 a judge ruled that allegations of sexual abuse were “wholly unfounded”.

The malignant influence of the mother, who lives in the Lincoln area, came to a head when the girl wrote to her father when she was nine.

The letter read: “This is what I really think about you. I hate you and you frighten me. You made my life miserable and stressful. I wish you would die. Leave me alone.”

In 2004 the father went to Lincoln County Court in an attempt to gain access. He was allowed to see her, but only under the supervision of a priest.

The contact was an unhappy experience for the daughter and the arrangement ceased. At a later court hearing, the father virtually admitted that further meetings would distress her.

At the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Ward refused the father permission to appeal his decision. The father is considering taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights.


Now, I like to consider myself a reasonably intelligent person....but I can only suggest that SURELY I must be missing something, because the slightest amount of common sense suggests that this is ridiculous.

The judge has acknowledged that the mother has falsely accused the father; he's described her influence in the life of their child as "vicious", "scandalous", "corrupting".....BUT, he's upholding the mother's custody because the court is compelled to act in the best interest of the child.

Again I ask you...what am I missing? Surely it's a flaw in my skills of comprehension because TO ME, mere logic would dictate that the "best interest of the child" would be removal from this "vicious", "corrupting", "venomous" environment.

This is how ridiculous the court system has become. It was bad enough when they relegated fathers to a secondary position that considered them little more than a paycheck. It was bad enough when they said that a mother was more important than a father. Now, apparently, keeping a child in a toxic environment with a bad mother while denying a good father access is in the child's best interest.

The court system should clarify for us all what exactly their definition of "best interest" is. I was always under the impression that the best interest of the child was the most stable environment possible and the benefit of the positive influence of both a mother and father....apparently the term has undergone a vast revision.


More...

Sad post. Not that unusual these days.
I don't know if I could deal with such an injustice if I was in that situation.

.

Feminist definition:

"Child's Best Interest" --> Whatever the female wants and to hell with the child and father.

I guess the alternative at this point would be foster care, intense therapy for the daughter, a gradual re-introduction of her father into her life, and all ties cut for the mother.

I say gradual for the father because even though no molestation took place, the daughter has been told from earliest childhood that it did, and she believes it. For her to be placed with him would indeed be traumatic for her.

What a terrible situation. The girl may never be right.

All of which serves to demonstrate the wisdom of the pre-feminist English common law that children belong to their fathers. If the old law had been followed this girl's life would have not had the result it has had

Blessings

Bob

Although I don't agree with all of Bob's choice phrases, the above is one I do agree with... Here we have a clear demonstration of the different methods used by women to hurt another. No one denies that domestic violence exists and is damaging, but so is what this poor excuse for a mother has committed, in fact I'd go so far as to say this is considerably more damaging than a slap upside the head.

Ditto the above.

This is OUTRAGEOUS.

OUTRAGEOUS !

The Judge says he and the Law can't do anything.

LIAR.

He has determined that the mother has deliberately lied to the Court and perverted the course of Justice. It is within his power to order the DPP to prosecute her for those offenses and to give her a lengthy sentence. It is within his own immediate power to jail her for Contempt of Court. It would not only punish her but send a message that such criminal activity, the manipulation of the Court and the slandering of the father, will not be tolerated.

As it stands, he is saying that it IS tolerated and WILL be in any future case.

This is criminal negligence on the Judge's part.

Then there is the brainwashing of the child. If he cannot find a case for culpable negligence, child abuse, emotional domestic violence for friggin' crying out loud, then he should be sacked on the spot.

The child has been emotionally damaged and immediate trauma action is needed. Foster home? Yes, possibly. Other relatives? Maybe. Counsel, therapy? Definitly. To just leave her with the mother is criminal negligence. It may be that the girl will be damaged for life from her experience to date, but leaving her in that situation is clearly culpable over and above the damage to date.

Consider a road accident victim whose legs have been crushed. The legs may have to be amputated. So, the decision is to leave her in the wrecked car because the legs might not be salvagable? That's the solution? Take no action at all?

This Judge is neutered. He deliberately neuters himself and others following. JUDGES SET PRECEDENT. But he keeps taking the pay.

Corrupt. If not incompetent.

He should go to the friggin' wall.

Indeed, judges have to follow the law and decisions made by the Supreme Court in similar cases.

Laws are indeed highly questionable within EU and often also within US and some other feminist strongly influenced nations.

I think the only what this man can do is to file a lawsuit against the ex/wife for defamation, slander, libel.

Otherwise he cannot do very much about that all, this is especially true, if the child is not willing to stand firmly on his side.
Of course he will have to continue to pay child-support and alimony for decades (nothing written in this report about it, but this is for sure)

The only advice I can offer, is more or less for the coming young generation of men, who is still single:

these are the kind of fathers who turn to killing.

Excellent, excellent post, Percy.....love your fire.

Again we see the courts are unwilling to persecute liars and slanderers of men even though they are breaking laws.

.