Talk:English family law

Untitled

This article appears to have been hijacked by father's rights groups, and contains no useful description of the realities of family law in England and Wales. I am a recent mature first class graduate in law, with some experience of the reality of family law in the courts, and I find the level of ignorance of the subject displayed here absolutely stunning. Of course there are problems and injustices in the system, and there are biases against both genders (no mention is made here of the financial aspects of the system), but the system clearly (quite rightly) prioritises the welfare of children above that of either of their parents, and that is something which is immediately clear to anyone who becomes involved with the courts. It should not be forgotten that cases do not come before the courts unless parents and spouses are unable to otherwise reach agreement between themselves or unless children are thought to be at genuine risk. In reality, the courts rarely "dictate" fathers' (or either parent's) relationships with their children without very good reason. And judges themselves are still predominantly male anyway.--88.105.106.222 (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, the law as it stands specifies the child's fundamental need for relationships with both his/her parents where this is at all possible, as a basic element for due judicial consideration when reaching decisions as to what is in the child's best interests. Judges are obliged to take this into account. Their decisions can be challenged on that point of law alone if they fail to do so, and they are well aware of this. Both established case law and the statutory framework make this stipulation and it is viewed as a fundamental principle within the legal profession. PS Many of us go into law because we want to help those who are disadvantaged and many give up time to offer free legal advice to those in need - You just have to look beyond the plush city-centre practices --88.105.106.222 (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is awful. I agree with most of the points it makes about the family courts but I don't agree with giving articles names that bear no relation to the content. This article shows everything that is bad about Wikipedia. Please somebody put some data in that is about UK family law, what it is, how it is administered and by whom. Then (maybe) the article as it stands could be appended at the end and entitles something like "Controversies" NM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.49.228 (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Bob Geldof's "eloquence"- ha! "who the f!@#$ are they to" etc. this article needs fixing. and less bob geldof. (Demondayzzz (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC))

POV Check: The article does not seem to describe the Family Law system in England and Wales, but rather lays out a fairly one sided argument, thinly veiled by prefacing biased statements with phrases such as 'It is argued by some'.

Bob Geldof heavily referenced - hardly one of the English legal system's foremost commentators.

- Probably better to use examples like Bruce Hyman or Sir Mark Potter as paradigms of how legal professionals actually behave in a family law context! 147.114.226.193 (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This page has been edited now is it in dispute, please remove the bar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.207.201 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bold text

The article above does not reflect public opinion or is the collective thought of legal professionals, there is a very new and neutral balanced account of family law on this page disputed, edits have now been taken please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.207.201 (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The experience of users of the family law system

The experience of users of the family law system, such as Bob Geldof (who has, incidentally, written a piece that was published in a law book and is probably THE foremost commentator) who know it by having encountered it, is going to be better than nothing. In the legal trade, family law is a "dirty" area, and it is unlikely that a legal tradesperson is going to use her precious billable time to make clear here matters that she has a vested interest in charging for. In any event, those who represent themselves in family courts in England come to know far more than many legal tradespeople in much the same way as sufferers of chronic disease often get to know more about that disease than their doctors. The views of legal tradespeople would likely be more biased, through their ignorance and self-interest. Matt Stan 01:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Being the most vocal commentator does not make Bob Geldof 'THE foremost commentator'. There are many who have written far more considered and well researched pieces than anything Bob Geldof has written (For example John_Eekelaar or Brenda_Hale to name but two). Whilst Matthew is right to draw attention to the potential bias of legal professionals in commenting on the system in which they pracitce, it should also be pointed out that users who have had judgments that didn't go in their favour are also likely to be biased, and potentially more so. Legal professionals are frequently found to criticise flaws in the legal system, and whilst they have an interest maintaining the prominance of the legal system they have no interest in maintaining flaws in the system. --Khushi 15:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is a complete farce. It seems to have been written entirely by and for the benefit of fathers 'rights' groups. There is no decent description of basic princilples or practice. There is whole chapter called 'lawyers vested interests' which contains not a shred of evidence or even an opinion worthy of the name. There are always two sides to every case and the losers can feel hard done by and that everybody is biased. The vast majority of family cases in England and Wales settle. Most of that negotiation of settlements is brokered by the lawyers. Family law is not a 'dirty area'. It has not been since the 1960's/early 1970's. It is, however, a poorly paid area (apart from rich peoples games in the High Court, you know, the ones that get into the papers) compared to other branches of the law being largely dependant on a constantly cut legal aid budget. The idea that a lawyer would deliberately run on a legal aid case to make money is utterly laughable. The fact that the commentator above describes the 'legal tradesperson' as 'she' speaks volumes. What many men who go to fathers rights groups can't cope with is that in Court their control freak ways meet their matchFainites 22:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

== This Evil English Family Law Trade Must Be Abolished ==

Not since the slave trade has a way of making money from other peoples parents caused such sickness in a nation of children and fathers.

The HMCS Family Law courts are unaccountable to justice. There is no effective Appeals process which does not cost anything less than £100,000. Millions of children have been taken from fathers since New Labour came to power so as to make billions of pounds for the UK family law trade.

The reason that millions of children have been taken from fathers is because Tony Blair (a lawyer) saw no wrong in allowing this quite evil trade to continue because his own trade have been making billions of pounds in taking children away from parents, and doing so without any reason, save for, to make money.

The other victims of this vile injustice above regarding the evil of family law cases are not bitter twisted comments from family law losers, they are true testimonies of just a fraction of fathers who have been to court to beg a person they do not even know if they can see or speak to their own children.

The English father knows that unless the courts allow a him his birth right to see his own children, the police can then arrest him for breaching a court order, and the father then ends up in prison should he not abide by the order. So the Police can also make some money from the trade, however as many policeman have been through this some may not follow up the order of the court to arrest the father for trying to see his own children.

Not since the NAZI'S have we had such a fair and non oppressive force of tax funded officials who feel great humanity when it comes to children and fathers.

We have become so tolerant of a ruling class, a class that never sneers at the father with such hatred, so really it is very clear that English fathers are now looked down on by the outside world as being, not weak men who are ruled by the mother and the legal industry, but simply a making money tool.

England has become the world leaders in taking children from fathers for money. The courts hold the hearings in private so as the public do not see the evil injustices that are committed behind closed doors, and always without a jury.

The lawyers, Cafcass, the judges and even the Court clerks are all in on this mass abduction of children which they say is just a job. The evidence placed before the courts is simply hear say comments from the mother, i.e allegations without any foundation in law or fact. These comments founded on the raw pain of a separation are recorded by the courts as FACTS.

The father has no right to question the so called evidence of government funded expert witnesses and social workers.

In UK family law cases there can be as many as twenty government funded agents in one court room giving evidence against the father.

The father is not allowed to question any of it.

He may voice his opinion and the court will say Yes we have sympathises with your predicament Mr X...anything else you wish to say...etc but that will be a standard text before making an order that takes the children from his or her father for the child's entire life time.

On issues of law the judges say that the father is either too violent or far too mentally ill to see or speak to his own children. The judge says this because he was told so by the mothers lawyers. Family Law judges were family law lawyers before they became judges, which is good idea because the judge has no vested interest!

Is the father allowed to challenge these false allegations against his mental health?  Is he allowed to call character witnesses to prove he is a good father?  No.  That would be like allowing the father to play tennis without his hands behind his back and a racket in his mouth whilst blind folded.

He may of course disagree with the just findings of the court, but he risks then being locked up in a mental hospital for obsessive conduct when he makes further applications to the court to see his children.

This is known as vexatious litigation. Another false mental illness the father has to prove he does not have, and of course the Courts and the Lawyers have a valid point when the father continues to argue he has a legal right to see his own children. English law does not recognise that right.

This form of litigation creates thousands of documents from the lawyers whilst the father frantically tries to prove to a judge he has never met that he is a good father.

The more the fathers calmly prove this the angrier the Family Law industry becomes, and so then move to have fathers sent to prison or a mental institution (where they can be given drugs or even electro convulsive shock therapy - see One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest), the English father can also be fined in legal costs, and lose his home, and also the father has to pay the mothers legal costs for losing the case, that in my view is very fair.

Fathers do sometimes win a legal right to see or speak to their own children every other weekend this is now very rare but can only take anything up to 10 years for a judge to issue the order. Then all the mother has to do is ignore the order and deny access anyway. The judges have no power to force the mother to share the children, and why should he.

The Courts and the lawyers keep on laughing because all the litigation (namely the arguments between the father and the mother) are making the lawyers plenty of money.

It is not seen in English culture as pure evil to take children from fathers because the system is to motivated by greed and money to see it any other way, it is seen as THE LAW!

The Family Law industry will NEVER turn the father into a monster so as to deny the child access to his father, a very simple technique deployed against the father so as he becomes mentally tormented with the illegality and unfairness of the system, that never happens. Yeah right!

Family Law cases being held in private and without a jury is a violation of Article 6 of The Human Rights Act and Article 8 Right To Family life. Two very distinct Human Right laws which are not respected by the English courts for to do so would cause a big reduction in legal fees for the Family Law trade one assumes.

Maybe English men are just too strong to win against this very clever trade which has made billions of pounds from taking children from parents, a trade which does cause one to wonder if this is why England fail to win any international cups in sport, well, because after all, the opponents have a great advantage of playing a team country whose ruling class do not allow its own men to see or speak to their own children.

There will be no changes in this system until the word gets around that lawyers do not resolve family law cases, they simply make money from them.

Harry Potter

Delete this article?

As it stands this article is appalling. It's virtually unsourced, and is principally composed of unattributed positions ascribed to un-named 'campaigners' or 'groups', and bald assertions without any support. Unless it can be hugely improved it should be deleted. 109.224.134.219 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on English family law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041212111501/http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2466/f-v-m.htm to http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j2466/f-v-m.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)