It’s time for the Judiciary to wake up

6 Responses

  1. Peter Davies says:

    At the same time that MP’s are telling us:
    ‘‘Given the extensive powers the courts already have, I do not believe legislation is needed to criminalise parental alienation or abandonment.

    The Government is considering what further reform may be needed to the family justice system so that it better meets the needs of separating couples and families, and can achieve the best possible outcomes for them. Options for potential family justice reforms are being considered to support people to reduce conflict, resolve their disputes and reach agreement. The Government has also said it will publish a Green Paper with its proposals on family justice in due course.]’

    Judges like Bellamy HHJ are lazily failing to use the tools the law provides. He has failed to ‘grapple’ with the issues before him and the child’s welfare certainly has not been the court’s ‘paramount’ consideration. there is no mention of unpaid work, imprisonment and suspended residence orders.

    How can subjecting a child to a childhood of emotional abuse outweigh a few days discomfort for reunification? The alienating parent has ran rings around Bellamy HHJ , This judgment is notably brief. I wonder what the judge has censored. I doubt whether it is a good story.

  2. We would agree Peter.

    The alienating parent has run rings around Bellamy HHJ

    Judges need to grow some balls and take immediate and direct action. The Government can’t have it both ways; either the Judiciary are equipped and trained to deal with this or they’re not.

  3. Terry says:

    I am not sure Justice Bellamy could order a change of residence, because it seems neither the father nor the local authority asked for it. The “adversarial system” requires a competent adversary.
    The failure to enforce existing orders is definitely a fault of the judge, though.
    My anger is more towards the feeble local authority.

  4. Peter Davies says:

    Hi Terry
    Section 10 (1) of the Children Act 1989 provides:
    (1 ) In any family proceedings in which a question arises with respect to the welfare of any child, the court may make a section 8 order with respect to the child if— (b) the court considers that the order should be made even though no such application has been made.
    Therefore, it would have been open to HHJ Bellamy to change residence regardless of whether anyone had applied for it.

    It’s also worth noting that HHJ could also have made an interim order under s.38 (provided he was happy the s.31 (2) threshold had been crossed) upon directing the LA to rewrite their defective report.

    With hindsight I think my criticism of the judge should really have been much stronger.

  5. jon says:

    I’ve had almost identical experience with HHJ at Liverpool who talks the talk but still allows an alienating parent to run rings around him.

    I believe a database of Case numbers should be started with view to group litigation at some point in the future when it is clear that our children are owed an apology and compensation due to the failures of the Family Courts.

  6. Karen says:

    I would be happy tosubmit mine as both court and cafcass ignored photographs of physical and dental neglect subjected by father. People who see them are horrified that they are ignored, as father is involved in thechurch (where neglect never happens.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *