NPO publishes blog articles to inform and to stimulate conversation about issues of importance to NPO's mission.  All blog articles express the opinions of the authors as individuals and do not necessarily reflect the views of National Parents Organization, its Board of Directors, or its executives.  

September 25, 2017 by Robert Franklin, Esq, Member, National Board of Directors, National Parents Organization

Last winter I posted three pieces here, here and here on the outrageous usurpation of parliamentary authority by the British family court judiciary.  It did so in the persons of Sir James Munby and Mr. Justice Cobb who issued substituted “Practice Direction 12 J” that all but demands that courts limit fathers’ access to their children at the very mention of domestic violence by the mother. 

In those posts, I detailed much of what was wrong with PD12J.  Most importantly, it’s based on a claim by the virulently misandric organization, Women’s Aid, that fathers in the U.K. had killed 19 children over the course of a decade.  I pointed out that mothers killed far more children than fathers and that, tragic as those 2-per-year slayings were for those involved, that number is simply too small to warrant a change of policy.  About one million children were involved in their parents’ divorce over the course of those 10 years.

Meanwhile, the reporting on PD12J strongly indicated that no particular quantum of proof would be required to limit or deny a child’s access to its father. Apparently anything would do.  Plus, by directly contradicting Parliament’s statutory presumption that contact with both parents is in a child’s best interests, the judges appear to be simply making, rather than enforcing, law.

Well, PD12J goes into effect on October 2 and it turns out that, shocking as the new rule appeared at first, it’s actually worse than I first thought.  I won’t go into the entire set of issues in this post, but I will point out that, not only was Women’s Aid’s claim of 19 paternal homicides almost certainly insufficient to support a change in policy, but it was flat wrong.  In fact, only three children’s deaths came at the hands of their fathers during those ten years.

Here’s the always excellent and understated Robert Whiston’s submission to the committee considering changing the practice directive.

Submission by Robert Whiston, former PSA-8 Committee Member

Judge Walker stated the following in evidence to the committee on Nov 9th, (Q.93), "If I may say so, we are all human - judges too. 19 children have been killed during contact since 1999 and no judge wants one of those 19 cases to be a case where he made a contact order. One is instinctively trying to do one's best to protect the children."

I would be very interested in knowing where Judge Walker derives this number. The figure of about 19 children is one that is promulgated by women activists and it was one such a group that raised the issue two years ago during a PSA-8 Committee Child Safety meeting.

The Lord Chancellors Dept looked into it and found evidence of only 3 deaths relating to contact matters in the last 10 years (I can forward a copy upon request).

As a PSA-8 committee member I discovered that once the committee as a whole had been informed of the error in the women's group information they did not want to discuss the false allegation further.

This year I discovered that the same falsehood remains on the same women's website. It is for this reason that I feel that unless the error in the judge's evidence is corrected it will become another of those 'urban myths' with which we are all so familiar with in our PC world.

All the judges were either unaware of this or failed to highlight the newer evidence in their testimony to the committee.

Also omitted was evidence regarding the most extreme forms of child abuse, i.e. neglect, cruelty and the number of child deaths, mostly perpetrated by mothers.

We all wrongly assume that custody with mother is best and safest, but examination of NSPCC statistics will make the point forcefully that the safest place for any child is to be with his/her father.

If the committee is to reach conclusions based on sound evidence I urge that these facts and observations be taken on board.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Whiston FRSA

That’s right, the Lord Chancellor’s Department looked into the matter and determined that Women’s Aid’s allegations were false.  More importantly, the judges testifying for a change in how family courts treat allegations of domestic violence ignored known facts regarding parental killing of children.  Not only that, they went on to also ignore evidence of “extreme forms of child abuse” that, as Whiston rightly points out, are mostly perpetrated by mothers.

In short, we have a nation in which 33% of children have no contact with their fathers altering policy to ensure that even fewer do.  And that alteration in policy is based on a combination of made-up facts while ignoring real ones that contradict the alteration.  Finally, it’s all done in the service of an organization that has never made a secret of its antipathy for men generally and fathers in particular.

It’s all utterly beneath contempt.

A bit more about this tomorrow.

Thanks to David for the heads-up.




National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.

#fathers'rights, #children'srights, #misandry, #Women'sAid

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn