UK Judge: Good fathers are 'powerless against vengeful mothers'
May 1st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesFrom Good fathers 'powerless against vengeful mothers' (Daily Telegraph, 5/1/08):
"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...
"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...
"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.'"
If only we could have 1/10th of the public awareness and condemnation of mothers like this as we do of fathers who are behind on their child support...
Read the full article here. To learn more about Parental Alienation, click here.
"));
19 queries. 0.430 seconds.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
Men has absolutely no reproductive rights what-so-ever and women are the sole arbiters of reproduction.
Society has developed a venomous rage towards all men, and this is now reflective within our current laws.
How did this happen, well society was "influenced by a 'drip, drip, drip of venom" portraying all men as rapists, batters, deadbeats, emotional and physical abusers, et al... After 40 years on constant indoctrination, the current situation in popular culture and laws is the result.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am
One thing that gets me about these rare times when you hear a judge express remorse for what's going on and an inability to stop it --
In each and every case, including this one, the vengeful mother HAS broken some law or another AND the judge has the power to change the custody arrangement in "the best interest of the child."
All they have to be willing to do is prosecute and punish the crimes when women commit them, and be willing to change custody to Dad because mom puts HER absolute right to act out in whatever way she sees fit ABOVE her child's right to basic emotional health.
What they're really saying is, "There's nothing I'M WILLING to do if vengeful mothers are determined to block access."
How about ENFORCING THE LAW?!!!!
May 1st, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Tim O'Brian: What they're really saying is, "There's nothing I'M WILLING to do if vengeful mothers are determined to block access."
Tim, were it that simple...
This one is long past the time something could and should have been done. That child will need years of treatment to get her head straightned out. Dumping her back in dad's arms at this point would just inflame the situation.
DanH
May 1st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
That child will need years of treatment to get her head straightned out.
Thats assuming its even possible. That mother has poisoned that girl so badly the damage my be irreversible.
And while it may be too late in this situation I do wonder why judges aren't willing to step to the plate and help these poisoned children and the fathers that are left out of the child's life. Who am I kidding, its because the judges are either too scared to stand up to the vengful mothers (which can be very dangerous in large numbers) or they are benefitting from this mistreatment of children and fathers.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Tin, that's unlikely. The judiciary in the UK isn't nearly as powerful as in the US. We have no constitution and judges are chosen solely by the government.
The judges are simply following the government, that men don't matter.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Yeah but listen to what you're saying.
You're saying that it's too hard and too traumatic to change custody for that kid. So you're saying that the status quo -- living with a mom who ONLY puts her own needs above her child -- is somehow better?! In the short term, yes it's incredibly difficult, but in the long term all you're doing is putting off this kid dealing with her mother's abuse until she's 30.
Just because it's hard doesn't mean it's wrong.
And also, had they upheld the law early on, the situation wouldn't be as dire as it is. The reason these women interfere with custody is because THEY KNOW there will be no consequences, no risk.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:41 pm
wow... I can't believe he spoke up. I bet that judge is removed from the bench (sarcasm).
May 1st, 2008 at 12:50 pm
During a recent settlement hearing I had as an effort to gain more time (not reduced support, just more time) with my daughters, I had made what I thought was a very civilized, cogent, passionate argument that my ex was attempting to alienate me and my girls. I pointed out that even our PhD. court ordered evaluator had determined I was the better parent and that my ex wife (who did, and continues, to play the sexual abuse card for the past 2 years) was not "emotionally stable enough to foster a positive, healthy relationship between the father and his two daughters and should never, ever be given full custody of these kids." Despite all this, the judge stated simply that false allegations of sexual abuse were "just a tactic" and my ex has promised not to do that anymore.
JUST A TACTIC!!!! She had my children vaginally examined by their pediatrician, attempted to destroy my reputation, my career, and worse yet, my relationship with my children by accusing me of a crime worse than murder, and the bench saw this as nothing more than a tactic.
The courts are not impotent or sterile, they're partners in this crime. Oh, by the way, the psychologist is a woman and still testified I was the better parent. Oh yeah, I forgot to add, the psychologist was my ex-wife's choice and I was ordered to see her and take all the tests and interviews.
The judge was more interested in my ex's claim that she was better able to take care of my girls' hair than was I.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Johnnyp: Whe sarcasm? Didn't it happen to that American judge who tried to rule for shared parenting.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The mother of my child made many false accusations and alleged that I was a drunken, doped up father, incapable of taking care of my child 7 years ago. With an ex-parte court appointment (that I was never aware of), she gained temporary sole physical custody that was to return to normal "visitation" after several "supervised visitation" visits and a drug assessment for both parents. I complied, paid the fees to do supervised visitation as ordered, but the ex simply refused to participate. I tried using the "self help" window available at the family court house, but it is somewhat useless. I had no money for a lawyer because of overwhelming child support payments and a low income. I did what I could and sent letters, and made lots of calls to try and talk to both the Ex, and my child, but the letters and calls were never returned. Six years later, I managed to make enough money to pay off the back child support arrears, amounting to about $6,000.00. The ex immediately took this money, hired another lawyer and had her new husband file a petition to terminate my parental rights (to adopt my child) for the reason that I haven't tried to contact my child in the last twelve months. It didn't occur to me to send the letters certified, so I have no proof. The judge dismissed the petition initially, but the ex and her attorney demanded a full trial. Now, after 11 months of therapists, evaluators, and court dates for trial pushed out 5 times, I still have the burden of proof to say I tried to contact my child, when all this time she was kept from me. I am now in debt for another $16,000.00 for all of this, and my now 12 year old daughter hates my guts because all she knows is what her mother has told her. I have a therapist interviewing everyone involved to try to prove my child was alienated, but I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Even if I "win" and manage to keep my right to be a Father intact, I face the overwhelming task of regaining the love and trust of my child. I love my kid, but I wish that I had never procreated in the first place. My life has been one of poverty, pain and hell for 8 years now. People wonder why Fathers are angry? It is difficult to continue to fight the good fight and remember the reasons for it. How many Dads just give up the fight, knowing they can't win?
Like it or not, the feminist machine is wrong. Parental Alienation is real. Look up "Malicious Mother Syndrome", it reads like a resume for my ex wife. No feminist knows the real pain of continuous grieving for a lost child. I am not even allowed to tell my child the truth (provided I could even speak to her). There is no Patriarchy. It has been dead a long time, and just like Elvis, no matter how many times it is mentioned, it isn't coming back to life. Welcome to the MATRIARCHY gentlemen. What now? How much pain can we take before justice is served?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Why is the judge powerless to enforce the law one way but not another?
Who is pulling the puppet strings on the judge?
Is he powerless or just lacks the testicular fortitude to do anything?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:26 pm
David M. -
The judge, incredibly, is still somewhat Father friendly. He did already dismiss the petition to terminate, but since a full trial has been demanded by the ex, the opposing attorney is able to continue delaying the trial for some reason each time it come close to have one. The therapist also incredibly is somewhat neutral and seems fair. I may come out on top. BUT, the judge himself is under attack by feminists in California for making decisions against some mothers that have alienated their child. Understandably, the judge is relying on outside influences (the evaluation of the county probation department, and that of a therapist), and seems unwilling to make a decision on his own because a RECALL petition has been put out to remove him from the bench for upholding the law. I am not facing the usual bias of the family court, I am facing the results of a feminist campaign to destroy the decision making powers of a judge who is now probably afraid he will lose his job if he isn't politically correct "enough". None of this makes the situation any better right now. As I said, in the end, even if I "win", I still face the reality that my child has been completely poisoned against me. I don't know if the damage is irreversible or not. We shall see. If I win or lose, I will dedicate a good part of my life from here on out to help make sure no other Dads face a similar situation. I will write letters, donate to MRA's, and Father's rights Advocates, and offer my help and sympathy for whatever it is worth to those afflicted by the monstrosity of what has become of their lives. Even after all this, I can still sympathize with the original feminists that simply wanted equality. That clearly positive ideal was lost somewhere. The feminists are now the blood enemy. They must be fought off by tooth, nail, lawyer, legislature, court system, money, protests, or whatever will bring sanity back to the world for Dads. Lord help the minority of females that have been put in the same position, but then again, they already have help. Thanks be to Glenn Sacks, and other Father's rights Advocates. Without them, we would suffer silently. At least we now have a voice of some kind, even if we have no rights yet.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
@stillsober34
I wanted you to have this link...
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/whos_oppressing_who/P45/
May 1st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Fathers4Justice, Los Angeles (F4JLA) passes out brochures at every rally, addressing Parental Alienation. Our efforts have drawn critics and supporters alike.
http://tinyurl.com/5rbhf5
One things for sure, this issue needs much more exposure, IMO. Showing Fathers in a positive light is essential to our efforts. I think there are some in our society who hate seeing anything positive about Fathers.
http://tinyurl.com/49m8do
May 1st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I love that "drip, drip, drip of venom." How very descriptive!
May 1st, 2008 at 3:26 pm
If I were the father in this case, I would demand to be tried by a jury. I would insist that I be found guilty and then sentenced or found innocent with my parental rights restored.
In a similar case, Lord Justice Wall (not Ward) temporarily assigned the father custody of two children. All of a sudden the parental alienation by the mother stopped and the parents shared equal physical custody.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
These mothers are making train wrecks out of their children.
You go girl!!
May 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
"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."
Delay, delay, delay and then rule based on the status quo enabled by the delay.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
"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.'"
Whenever I hear of kids saying things like that, it screams parental alienation. Even kids with truly abusive parents mostly love those parents and many even make excuses for them. Vitriol like this comes from adults who are messing with the kids' minds. Kids will do and say what they have to in order to survive with an alienator.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
To Jorge, Thank you.
To Tex - That letter was definitely a result of Mom's interference. Check this out - My ex played a 9 year old cassette tape of me yelling at her (I don't remember why I was yelling at her), for my 12 year old daughter on her birthday last year and told her that Daddy is a violent monster and hates her. I know this because my daughter told the County probation Department's evaluator, and it was put into writing before the judge. The judge skipped all 11 pages of the evaluation document and read the last line that says "In my humble opinion, the petition to terminate this Father's rights should be dismissed". The judge never read anything else. He adopted the recommendation, but now I face a full trial with witnesses, etc. More money down the tubes. I would call this instance a perfect example of Parental Alienation, and also one of the check marks for Malicious Mother Syndrome.
May 1st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
More bad behavior by women rewarded. Grotesque.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Yet another gutless judge whining and wringing his hands in the hope we won't notice. Well, we are doing, slowly but surely.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
JD, I see this judge as doing something heroic by speaking out. Also, the artlce mentions, "Lord Justice Ward attacked child access law ". Judges have to (or are supposed to) work within the framework of laws. If this law was written in a manner so slanted in favor of women with mandatory components , it would leave judges with little latitude to do what they feel is right. Don't get me wrong, judges tick me off too. But, I think the root of the problem is with lawmakers. They get pressured or misled by, or are themselves, feminists and sponsor or vote in favor of immoral and unfair laws. They are scard to death that if they don't comply the feminists will put out a hit on them and they will be dragged through the mud and lose a huge portion of female voters. It's all twisted man. The best thing men can do is organize and lobby for men's interests; but as of right now our men's efforts are only a tiny fraction of those of the female lobby.
May 1st, 2008 at 10:57 pm
this is ridiculous. Why can the court not take the child away from the mother and give sole custody to the father? Is that not in the long term best interests of the child?
May 1st, 2008 at 11:15 pm
jerrywood,
"Why can the court not take the child awau from the mother and give sole custody to the father?"
*GASP*
Surely you jest!!!
G_R
May 1st, 2008 at 11:22 pm
This is an unsual act of courage from a judiciary that seems, by and large, to be either cowed by or enslaved to, feminist ideology. Lets hope that he doesnt pay for his candor with his job, as James Michael Shull did...
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1371
"The father is considering taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights."
Yes, good luck with that, mate, but i fear your penis will get in the way.
And didnt this cow of a woman realize how much damage she was doing to her daughter by telling her all these lies? The belief that youve been sexually abused will exact it's toll, even if said belief is false. This would seem to me an obvious case of psychological abuse by the mother, yet there's no mention of her being charged with said offense, nor, of course, with making false claims.
"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."
A priest seems an odd choice of protector when it comes to child sexual abuse.
I kid, i kid. The great majority of priests are innocent of such charges.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:20 am
If only we had 1/10th of the judges with integrity that the U.K. has. (and they probably only do have 10 or so).
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 am
That might sound a little confusing. What I mean is, "if only we had in the U.S., 1/10th of.."
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:33 am
Kurt said:
“The courts are not impotent or sterile, they're partners in this crime.”
You are right Kurt. “Family court” judges have tremendous latitude (judicial discretion) in these matters. They could hold themselves up to the “reasonable person” standard (and insist upon adherence to that doctrine by all those appearing before them) but they won’t. Partly because to do so would greatly cut down on their business and partly because there exists a none-too-subtle social engineering agenda at work here.
Lord Justice Ward said:
“Because of her mother’s “viciously corrupting” influence, it would cause the teenager too much distress if she spent time with her father . . .”
I suggest that the court should have little tolerance for ANY parent having a “viciously corrupting influence” (of ANY nature) on a child. I struggle with the notion that this viciously corrupting influence could possibly be in the best interest of the child.
In essence, his Lordship admits that the court will allow and thus, in effect, sanction the mother to viciously corrupt the child. Tell me once again, your Lordship, how this is in the child’s best interest?
I agree with others here who proffer that this unfortunate child will, in all likelihood, grow up to be a reasonable, balanced person just like her mother.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am
Chris D, Michael: This is no more an act of courage than Pontius Pilate washing his hands.
While it is true that the vast majority do much less even than that, all of them could do very much more. It is a sign of the desperation of our cause and the logical corner into which we have been painted that even the slightest sign that a judge might consider the status quo as a little suspect is viewed as heroism. I call BS. I have heard judges, lawyers and other court personnel make so many irresponsible, unjust and downright nonsensical statements that I consider it almost at the level of chance that one of them, once in a while, might, pretty much completely by accident, say something sensible.
This judge is a coward, the only difference is that he seems to have some vague awareness of it.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
JD, I think everything has to be taken in context. It's like at universities nowadays. The men are running scared. They are scared of losing their careers for speaking up. The whole thing is FUBAR.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Chris
"The best thing men can do is organize and lobby for men's interests; but as of right now our men's efforts are only a tiny fraction of those of the female lobby."
MCA, there is only one way to expand our efforts, and that is to expand our efforts.
Broach the issue with fellow students, co-workers, and others on you're E-mail list, and send them a linc to
Glenn sacks.com
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:41 pm
It seems like the one thing not being mentioned here, is why - why could the judge not hear the appeal? Why could he do nothing? Is it because the law is etched in stone, or for fear of alienating feminists, or what? If the law was etched in stone, it seems like the case wouldn't even have got past the stage where the father filled out a request for a court hearing. He would have been turned down by a window clerk, it seems.
May 3rd, 2008 at 8:05 am
That the 'best interests of the child' argument is just cover for 'the best interests of the mother' is shown by the ready willingness to jail single mothers for their child's truancy from school. If a child can be deprived of its mother (when she is the sole resident parent and the other parent is denied access) for a period simply for not ensuring that their child attended classes, then clearly mothers can and should be deprived of them for at least similar periods for denying their children parenting.
The judiciary in the UK has no excuse given the recent publication by the former president of the UK's Law Society, Martin Mears, of his book, Institutional Injustice. There has never ben a more comprehensive damning indictment of any system than what is contained in this book. That government and others don't listen is one thing, but no judge can claim to be unaware of its contents. The problem is that the system as a whole and lower courts are responsible for major delay, so that when cases come to the attention of more senior judges the combined delays, then PAS is often well entrenched.
(Steve Moxon is the author of the new book, The Woman Racket: The new science explaining how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society.)
May 6th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Parental Alienation SYNDROME is the cruelest hit any loving parent can experience. My 3 children in Germany, now ages 26, 25, and 20, whom I did not see for 18 years, have reviled and accused me like that girl in England- when I first got the son on the phone at age 14 he said, "If you call me again, I'll kill you"- many times. They told a judge they didn't want to see me or get my letters. When an a adult, he said, if you (bother my trother and sister,, "I'll crush you." The daughter refused to visit me till this year, but when she got back to her environment in Germany she wrote that all my nice words and efforts with her were "just acting." The result is they are likely to NEVER trust, respect, and be committed to a life partner. The boy said he doesn't want children. The girl said "I don't believe in commitment."!!! Damage will be life-long.
This is indeed a syndrome because in such severe cases all the characteristics of this mental and behavioral disorder are evident- denial of PA, campaign of denigration, claim that their ideas are their own, reflexive negativity against the absent parent, inability to see the cruelty to the parent who would love them, etc, as Richard Gardner first described.
It's past time that judges and lawyers recognize this as the cruelest of all family conflicts.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I am walking proof that divorced dads have no rights. I am a great father, yet my children do not even know it because Good fathers are 'powerless against vengeful mothers' , their slanderous acusations and the 'family courts' crooked ways. relood@yahoo.com
August 27th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
kenlah ofuvzg marel
August 29th, 2008 at 5:39 am
jcrd khrdeoj wakp
August 31st, 2008 at 2:29 am
mgbcuq emkr
October 26th, 2008 at 4:37 am
pvbg
October 28th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
ygux
October 30th, 2008 at 5:22 am
dhazl