Love the blogs Phil, in many you state "The parent does not have the right to see the child but the child right to have a relationship with the parents if safe to do so" The first words out of the judges mouth in my case , Was "every parent has the right to see there child" I am a father who took my son from his mother under PR and safeguarding issues, but insured regular visit to the mother.but my son (8 Years) not wishing to sleep at mothers home. judge changed that straight away 3 nights a week. pending the section 7, back in court end October.
Just curious my Ex gf mental health broke down back in Sept and since then I have had 3 Interim orders for Son to live with me with backing of social worker My ex thinks the courts will rule 50/50 if she proves she's better what you reckon will happen as resolution hearing is in June and he would have been settled at mine for 10 months by then you think he will stay with me?
Thank you. Thank you. Thankyou. You could of been telling my story exactly as that’s just what happened to me My daughter was taken when she was 9 She’s now 19 and expecting her first child and this has brought up many many difficult feelings My ex husband did everything he could to prevent me from ever seeing her. I spent thousands of pounds fighting him in court just to be able to even see her It’s done permanent damage to both of us. The relationship we should of had is fractured and damaged. We love each other very much but obviously she has a very close relationship with her dad and I feel second best all the time. Her dad seems to compete to be the best all the time He took a mother away from her daughter and her half brother Life since has been painful and difficult and it’s time I can never get back
You had a big wonderful opportunity and you let the relationship with your daughter slip through your hands with your eyes wide open. You will have to Try again another child ❤
Hi can I just ask a question in general why do health visitors say your mental health holds no weight in family court to mothers if it seemingly does why lie be told to be truth about your mental health but prepare for it to lose you custody of the child you made a heart lungs blood carried for 9 months and birthed because a man cannot physically do that why is mental health weaponise against parents
Health visitor caffcass social workers all tried desperately to make it out that I had mental health issues. I knew from start what they were trying to do.
This is very unempathetic. Clearly any parent having had huge changes would be wanting to return to the status quo. Anyone changing the child's school is not thinking of the disruption of the child but of their own benefit and taking advantage of a very vunerable person. I fully agree children shoukd have both parents but to change and do things whilst a person is experiencing a psychotic or depressive episode feels very callus. You suggest just agreeing with what the court order. Their is no mother I know who would do this. The reason they go to a solicitor is to have someone on your side and fight your corner. Some solicitors I'm sure will willingly take the money, some actually do want to help. Your suggesting you as a paid mckenzie friend is just to accept the ruling, why bother even having you there? You are then just a body sat with the person in court advising them to go with what the authorities suggest. The authorities get it wrong lots of times and it takes a huge amount of effort to prepare cases and the families deserve to be listened to and all evidence and situations heard. I feel your advice lacks any feeling or understanding of these situations. Maybe your job lead you to see things clinically. Not everyone is able or wants to do this.
Hi Helen, I don't make the rules, I report what I see. Yes you are right, mum's become desperate and in their desperation hand over tens of thousands of pounds to lawyers who can't change anything. The mum is then victimised all over again by now being in crippling debt. I am honest, and try not to give clients false hope. You say I am 'unempathetic', no I am very understanding in my support, what I do have though is honesty and integrity in that support. If you personally want to encourage vulnerable mums to hand over lifelong savings and get into debt on credit cards, then I suggest that is perhaps unwise and a little troubling. We support many many mums in this position and however difficult, openness and honesty is what they prefer and need.
I think Phil is wisely suggesting that if the case is similar to his example then accepting the outcome is the best way forward for both the mother and the child. But he also outlines the three tests that need to be met, and if a mother was able to meet these three tests, but was not receiving a fair hearing in court, I expect that Phil would challenge this and support her in her appeals to be heard. I agree that this is an enormously emotive subject. It is not helped by emotive language that you sometimes hear, such as “the court has taken my child from me”, when from the child’s (Sandy’s) perspective, the decision feels like nothing has changed. It simply isn’t the enormous decision that the mother makes it out to be (from perspectives other than the mother’s). Phil’s observation is that if you rail against the decision you usually end up more angry and much poorer than if you work with the decision and make the best of it. There will always be exceptions but they are rare.
The father was in any event never allowed to change Sandy’s school in the first place but he disrupted her life and did it anyway, behind the mother’s and the court’s back. THAT is the point in all of that not a healed mental illness. This is why these cases are highly contested because one parent behaves like a wrecking ball and the court looks away and “just focuses on the child”
We don’t know the reason the school was changed. People are assuming motives weren’t sound. Maybe Sandys dad couldn’t drive or was a single dad and couldn’t juggle the commute whilst working. Maybe Sandy hated the primary school.
Very good clear explanation. We don’t make the rules and decisions we have to work with the system.
Love the blogs Phil, in many you state "The parent does not have the right to see the child but the child right to have a relationship with the parents if safe to do so" The first words out of the judges mouth in my case , Was "every parent has the right to see there child" I am a father who took my son from his mother under PR and safeguarding issues, but insured regular visit to the mother.but my son (8 Years) not wishing to sleep at mothers home. judge changed that straight away 3 nights a week. pending the section 7, back in court end October.
Just curious my Ex gf mental health broke down back in Sept and since then I have had 3 Interim orders for Son to live with me with backing of social worker
My ex thinks the courts will rule 50/50 if she proves she's better what you reckon will happen as resolution hearing is in June and he would have been settled at mine for 10 months by then you think he will stay with me?
However you are probably a total expert on this sytem and i have booked an apointment because i tbink you can help me..
I could badly do with your help..my current situation is so complicated along the lines of this video.
www.mckenziefrienduk.net
Thank you. Thank you. Thankyou. You could of been telling my story exactly as that’s just what happened to me My daughter was taken when she was 9 She’s now 19 and expecting her first child and this has brought up many many difficult feelings My ex husband did everything he could to prevent me from ever seeing her. I spent thousands of pounds fighting him in court just to be able to even see her It’s done permanent damage to both of us. The relationship we should of had is fractured and damaged. We love each other very much but obviously she has a very close relationship with her dad and I feel second best all the time. Her dad seems to compete to be the best all the time He took a mother away from her daughter and her half brother Life since has been painful and difficult and it’s time I can never get back
You had a big wonderful opportunity and you let the relationship with your daughter slip through your hands with your eyes wide open.
You will have to Try again another child ❤
Hi can I just ask a question in general why do health visitors say your mental health holds no weight in family court to mothers if it seemingly does why lie be told to be truth about your mental health but prepare for it to lose you custody of the child you made a heart lungs blood carried for 9 months and birthed because a man cannot physically do that why is mental health weaponise against parents
I guess they are afraid that people won't come forward if they believe that it may impact on child arrangements.
Health visitor caffcass social workers all tried desperately to make it out that I had mental health issues.
I knew from start what they were trying to do.
This is very unempathetic. Clearly any parent having had huge changes would be wanting to return to the status quo. Anyone changing the child's school is not thinking of the disruption of the child but of their own benefit and taking advantage of a very vunerable person. I fully agree children shoukd have both parents but to change and do things whilst a person is experiencing a psychotic or depressive episode feels very callus. You suggest just agreeing with what the court order. Their is no mother I know who would do this. The reason they go to a solicitor is to have someone on your side and fight your corner. Some solicitors I'm sure will willingly take the money, some actually do want to help. Your suggesting you as a paid mckenzie friend is just to accept the ruling, why bother even having you there? You are then just a body sat with the person in court advising them to go with what the authorities suggest. The authorities get it wrong lots of times and it takes a huge amount of effort to prepare cases and the families deserve to be listened to and all evidence and situations heard. I feel your advice lacks any feeling or understanding of these situations. Maybe your job lead you to see things clinically. Not everyone is able or wants to do this.
Hi Helen, I don't make the rules, I report what I see. Yes you are right, mum's become desperate and in their desperation hand over tens of thousands of pounds to lawyers who can't change anything. The mum is then victimised all over again by now being in crippling debt. I am honest, and try not to give clients false hope. You say I am 'unempathetic', no I am very understanding in my support, what I do have though is honesty and integrity in that support. If you personally want to encourage vulnerable mums to hand over lifelong savings and get into debt on credit cards, then I suggest that is perhaps unwise and a little troubling. We support many many mums in this position and however difficult, openness and honesty is what they prefer and need.
I think Phil is wisely suggesting that if the case is similar to his example then accepting the outcome is the best way forward for both the mother and the child. But he also outlines the three tests that need to be met, and if a mother was able to meet these three tests, but was not receiving a fair hearing in court, I expect that Phil would challenge this and support her in her appeals to be heard. I agree that this is an enormously emotive subject. It is not helped by emotive language that you sometimes hear, such as “the court has taken my child from me”, when from the child’s (Sandy’s) perspective, the decision feels like nothing has changed. It simply isn’t the enormous decision that the mother makes it out to be (from perspectives other than the mother’s). Phil’s observation is that if you rail against the decision you usually end up more angry and much poorer than if you work with the decision and make the best of it. There will always be exceptions but they are rare.
The father was in any event never allowed to change Sandy’s school in the first place but he disrupted her life and did it anyway, behind the mother’s and the court’s back. THAT is the point in all of that not a healed mental illness. This is why these cases are highly contested because one parent behaves like a wrecking ball and the court looks away and “just focuses on the child”
We don’t know the reason the school was changed. People are assuming motives weren’t sound. Maybe Sandys dad couldn’t drive or was a single dad and couldn’t juggle the commute whilst working. Maybe Sandy hated the primary school.
@@hiaslayer you are supposed to focus on the child. Who would you suggest the courts focus on?