Court plus Caffcass

Can someone help. I am acting (hopefully) as mackenzie friend to a friend who is fighting to stop her emotionally abusive ex husband from having the 4 year old son for more than 1 weekend every 2 weeks and 1 evening and night every week. She does not want 50/50 residence.

Can anyone let me know what the procedure in court. Cafcass interviews have been taken and the child court meets on monday. Will my friend be able to question Cafcass findings. Her ex husband has a legal aided solicitor to help him!

Any tips for me to help her as she is bricking it.

Many thanks for any help. She really needs it.
Cheers
Ian

I think I'd want to know a great deal more about a case, Ian, before advising on how to reduce contact between a parent and their child. My view, I suspect shared by many here, is that a shared residence order is a very good starting point; it needn't imply that care must be equally shared, but it does confirm that in the eyes of the law both parents have equal status and responsibilities.

Emotional abuse is a vague and undefined term; what matters is the welfare of the child, not what the mother wants, and protecting a child from alleged harm must be balanced against the damage caused by a restricted or terminated relationship with one of its parents.

If the ex is a good enough father to care for his son every other weekend it's probable he's a good enough father to care for him more often. No parent is perfect - despite what some think about themselves - and non-resident parents need all the opportunity they can get to establish good relationships and hone their parenting skills. Obstructing this in most cases is not in the child's best interests.

if cafcass makes a reccomendation in the childs best interest why would anyone not want to agree with the decision, unless of course cafcass has made a mistake or believed lies told by one or both parents?

I think I'd want to know a great deal more about a case, Ian, before advising on how to reduce contact between a parent and their child. My view, I suspect shared by many here, is that a shared residence order is a very good starting point; it needn't imply that care must be equally shared, but it does confirm that in the eyes of the law both parents have equal status and responsibilities.

Emotional abuse is a vague and undefined term; what matters is the welfare of the child, not what the mother wants, and protecting a child from alleged harm must be balanced against the damage caused by a restricted or terminated relationship with one of its parents.

If the ex is a good enough father to care for his son every other weekend it's probable he's a good enough father to care for him more often. No parent is perfect - despite what some think about themselves - and non-resident parents need all the opportunity they can get to establish good relationships and hone their parenting skills. Obstructing this in most cases is not in the child's best interests.

---

And you won't get a better reply than that.

lawyer32 wrote:


Any tips for me to help her as she is bricking it.





Not surprised.

Hmmm - as usual a load of very unhelpful replies so far.
Lets just perhaps accept that there are some situations where contact isn't always best for the child and that there may well be reasons why in this case it should be reduced. Who knows - no, we don't know all the facts but do we really need them to provide a constructive reply?? Instead everyone is so quick to jump on the "how dare you suggest reducing contact" bandwagon.

One word for court - FACTS. If there are reasons for concern then all courts and judges will be interested in are the facts. Not the emotional battle between the parents or their opinions of each other. If there is some form of abuse and/or welfare issues then it is a case of presenting these factually and then letting Cafcass do their own report if directed to by the judge. There are lots of guidelines on the site about how to proceed and respond to all of these investigations.
Your friend should have had access to the Cafcass report prior to the hearing as should her ex.

kalamaki wrote:

Hmmm - as usual a load of very unhelpful replies so far.




Bit of a sweeping statement there. How would you know that the usual responses from Posters on here are unhelpful?

I'm sure if you look around you will see that most, if not all, the responses are indeed helpful.

Perhaps the lack of help he has recieved so far may rest with his question regarding limiting another Father's Contact for no reason that can be demonstrated yet?

As he said earlier "it's not what she wants..." is another example of the Mother thinking only of herself and not that of the child.

I've no idea why this bloke wants to limit another Father's Contact for no good reason but he won't get a lot of help from me.