Mother denied all access to her children

[Not So Wise]

A spokeswoman for Mothers 4 Justice, a pressure group, said: “When you consider what this woman was put in prison for, it is absolutely appalling. She was put in a jail with murderers and criminals.”

She said she disagreed with punishing a mother for her children making allegations about their father.

If it was just the kids inventing stuff on their own then yes I would agree, but as that is highly unlikely then Jail and barred from seeing the kids in totally appropriate IMO, far to many parents (mainly mothers) pull the fake child abuse card during divorce/custody battle. Things like that not only destroy the accused life (to many think no smoke without fire) but more importantly seriously mess up the kids

Always been of the opinion that in such cases the false accuser should get the same punishment the accused would have got if they had been guilty

[Menelaus]

I say good on the judge. Too many parents use their children as pawns when relationships break up and its wrong, Children get very upset by break-ups and often blame themselves without one or the other putting the boot in.

It sounds to me like she has had a break-down and I think she should be sent to a rehab centre for treatment, prison really doesn't sound like the answer to me.

Yep. I know that I did - even though I was 18 when my parents eventually split up (Menelaus = sensitive soul).

[GardenGirl]

I say good on the judge. Too many parents use their children as pawns when relationships break up and its wrong, Children get very upset by break-ups and often blame themselves without one or the other putting the boot in.

It sounds to me like she has had a break-down and I think she should be sent to a rehab centre for treatment, prison really doesn't sound like the answer to me.

[Menelaus]

Do mothers for justice dress up as catwoman? With or without whip?

WTF? What else do they want?

[NotAllThere]

Do mothers for justice dress up as catwoman? With or without whip?

[Menelaus]

This caused a bit of an argument with Mrs BP. She says only reason judgement made was as it is a woman judge and she had the balls to do the right thing : a man would not.

I think the judgement is monstrous. xfering residence is one thing : denying contact is totally wrong.

One thing we agreed on : substiture father for mother and the story becomes so common as not to be newsworthy. Only thing here is that the mother can see kids after 3 years : I know alot of men banned from seeing kids until grown up and banned from making any court orders to challenge decision.

Yep, including me. My ex-wife made a series of scurrilous and wholly false allegations in our divorce that had absolutely no basis in fact and, because I was in another country at the time of our divorce (England, rather than Scotland) the court accepted her word as fact.

Whilst the interests of kids must be paramount in divorce and separation proceedings, the actions of women seem to be allowable by the courts in all circumstances.

Am I the only person in the world who thinks that, just perhaps, it's time that we men started standing up for ourselves? Perhaps "The Worm That Turned" wasn't a Two Ronnies fantasy after all.

[BrilloPad]

This caused a bit of an argument with Mrs BP. She says only reason judgement made was as it is a woman judge and she had the balls to do the right thing : a man would not.

I think the judgement is monstrous. xfering residence is one thing : denying contact is totally wrong.

One thing we agreed on : substiture father for mother and the story becomes so common as not to be newsworthy. Only thing here is that the mother can see kids after 3 years : I know alot of men banned from seeing kids until grown up and banned from making any court orders to challenge decision.

[BrilloPad]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6256709.ece

A COURT has denied the former wife of a rich City financier all access to their three children after she was found to be turning them against him.

In an extraordinary ruling, the woman, who was also judged to be too indulgent a parent, has been legally barred from seeing her children for three years. She was jailed for approaching one of them in the street and telling him she loved him in breach of a court order. She is facing a possible return to jail this summer for posting a video about her plight on the internet.

The woman judge presiding over the case justified banning contact between the mother and her children because they were being placed in “an intolerable situation of conflict of loyalties resulting in them suffering serious emotional harm”.

During supervised visits with her, the children made serious allegations about their father which were later shown to be unfounded. Social workers believed the mother was either prompting them to make the claims or they were saying them just to please her.

A psychiatrist who assessed the case said the mother “loved her children” but had harmed their development by trying to be always “available” to them.

The judge said she had “serious concern about [the mother] infantilising the children, encouraging them to make complaints about the father and encouraging them to want to take an inappropriate part in these proceedings”.

The mother breached an injunction excluding her from her children’s lives by approaching her son in public. She also sent texts to her former husband, including one saying she was sorry. Another said she would do whatever he wanted to get access. She was sentenced to a month in prison.

The case has prompted an outcry from campaigners who want the family courts to be more publicly accountable. Although recent changes have allowed a small number of cases to be reported, most are still conducted in secret.

A spokeswoman for Mothers 4 Justice, a pressure group, said: “When you consider what this woman was put in prison for, it is absolutely appalling. She was put in a jail with murderers and criminals.”

She said she disagreed with punishing a mother for her children making allegations about their father.

Anthony Douglas, chief executive of Cafcass, a body that looks after children’s welfare during court cases, said: “In a small minority of cases, continuing contact with a parent who is determined to continue a relationship battle after separating can cause their child immense long-term emotional harm.

“Ending contact with a parent can help children grow up and move on from events to which they were often only miserable witnesses.”