issues - case studies

case 5

I, /// of //// do testify and give evidence to the Court.

My experience as a father is given below.

I have one child, a daughter from my marriage, which broke up in 1986 when she was two years old (my wife admitting adultery). The original contact with my daughter was weekly. My then wife reduced it to fortnightly in 1987 as she disliked seeing my child’s show of affection as I arrived. The divorce was finalised in 1989 and conflict over contact continued taking a variety of forms, mostly petty, although it included obstruction of staying contact. This lead to a court appearance in 1992 and my ex-wife was eventually prevailed upon to permit this type of contact.

However as my daughter approached her twelfth birthday there were further disputes over contact, in particular staying contact was denied inspite of the outcome of the previous hearing and my ex-wife told me that if I pursued the matter my daughter would refuse all contact. My daughter duly did this as my ex-wife had threatened and I turned to the courts for support once again.

Briefly stated the judge ordered court welfare reports to be produced which found against contact, in accordance with the views of my ex-wife and her witnesses, and everything my daughter said to the court welfare officers (CWO’s - now CAFCASS officers). I then withdrew my application for defined contact on legal advice.

My objections are as follows:-
-Derogatory remarks about me and the contact with my daughter were accepted verbatim. The CWO’s said that the contact was "sadly lacking" and that I didn't "have any insight into my daughter’s wishes and feelings" which was untrue. The CWO’s did not interview my witnesses who were the only ones, other than my daughter or myself, to have any first hand knowledge of the quality of the contact, and refused even to look at photographs of it, which was unfair.

-My ex-wife tried to cover up the existence of a child by lying (whose father was her new partner but he had given up the boy for adoption), which angered the court welfare officers but the fact that she lied to them was omitted from their report. This showed bias towards her.

-The CWO’s dismissed my assertion of parental alienation (PA) and criticised me for showing anger at the behaviour of my ex-wife. They limited their examination of PA to asking my daughter whether it was true. She denied her mother had tried to influence her to refuse contact as any child affected by PA would do. In fact my daughter's evidence to them contained many of the elements of PA described by many experts, especially the lack of equivocation. This showed the CWO’s lack of competence to assess all aspects of the case.

-After ten years of contact with my daughter it took the court welfare officers fifteen minutes to interview my daughter and then confront me with her "views" and decide that there was "no positive relationship between us". Rather than a sign of an efficient operation my barrister was appalled at the clear lack of care taken.

-A further report was produced by the court welfare service after the original author failed to turn up for court claiming a letter explaining her absence had been sent of which the court could find no evidence. No cross-examination of the original author was possible which was unfair. This second report was based on the findings of the first against my solicitors understanding of the judge’s instructions for a new report. It tried to bring the case to a close as soon as possible because they said it was based on my daughter's clearly expressed views. It was unfair that the CWO’s ignored the judge’s instructions. In addition, their haste to see contact fail and pressurise me to abandon the case without it being examined, albeit that it had taken almost a year to reach this stage was unreasonable.

In summary, my daughter showed remarkable progress in all aspects of her life throughout the contact, as all parties testified. It has now been seven years since I saw my daughter and the CWO’s hope that my daughter would respond to indirect contact has proved a pious hope. Few parents could sustain the relationship with their child in the face of hostility whilst the people you turn to fail to accept the causes of PA, show bias, and do not appreciate the value of contact, merely trying to end it swiftly. This was unjust to me, my extended family and to my daughter.

I, ///// DECLARE THAT:

I believe the facts stated are true and that the opinions expressed are correct. I will swear the contents of this statement under oath and am willing to attend court to give evidence.
Signed: (///) Dated this 21st day of July 2003