Why is it wrong to expect a child to show some respect towards a parent who has loved them and tried their best to care for them?
It isn't good enough, in my view, for those who are responsible for gathering the views of children during contact disputes (see Franks posts on this topic) to simply allow the child to get away with denigrating or vilifying a decent parent without trying to explain to them it is bad behaviour.
Don't you think it likely that our children will think these court appointed officials actually "approve" of such behaviour if they don't try to correct it?
I believe changes to our family law that make contact between the parent and child a legal presumption (in favour of course) - with restriction on who qualifies to protect the vulnerable, will change everything. I don't want small government when it comes to opposing a hostile ex. bent on destroying your relationship. I just think it is a misconstruction to tell someone who is being pushed out of their child's life altogether that the state can't intervene to save their relationship with the child because to do so would infringe parental rights.
As far as ageism goes I'm sure these judges are very able people, even those who many of us in the fathers/parental rights groups don't like. However their collective ages is a factor in their behaviour I suspect (for good or ill - I'm not saying which it might be).
I wanted to show you how some of these same judges have very different views on family law than our former head of the family division professes (when she dismissed any blame attaching to the courts/law for so many fathers losing contact in her article above).
By the way I have so far failed to locate an article I mentioned to you some time ago explaining the legal hiatus some fathers find themselves in when they get a higher court to agree with them that they may have been unfairly treated. The higher court then says it cannot/will not overturn the lower courts decision in some cases. This is because, for example, the higher court says it cannot recreate the exact scenario or legal position used by the judge in the lower court to decide the child's best interests so it is reluctant to overturn their judgement (not explained well I'm afraid).
This case I'm going to post for you may contain elements of the failings I'm talking about given the judges comments (given in open court - a very, very rare occurrence in our family court where the authorities are going to ridiculously great lengths to prevent any public scrutiny, which wouldn't be tolerated in the US):-
"A High Court judge has launched an astonishing attack on the family justice system which he said had failed a father who has not seen his daughter since October 2001.
Mr Justice James Munby, a respected Family Division judge, said he was going public with the judgment on a private case because of the need by the judiciary to take heed of public opinion over failings in the system."
He said: "There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that fact and to face up to it honestly. If we do not we risk forfeiting public confidence."
The judge said the father involved had had to abandon his five-year battle for contact with his seven-year-old daughter following unfounded allegations by his former wife who did not comply with court orders.
The judge, who called for sweeping changes to the way the courts deal with applications for contact, said: "Those who are critical of our family justice system may well see this case as exemplifying everything that is wrong with the system. I can understand such a view."
Mr Justice Munby also admitted that when the system fails - "and fail it does" - it is more often fathers, not the mothers, who are the "victims of that failure".
The judge, who made it clear that none of the parties, including the locations of earlier court hearings, could be identified, ended his judgment with a public apology to the father, who was described as a warm and caring man, and his daughter.
Whether an improved system would have provided a better outcome for this child and this father is now almost impossible to know. Perhaps it would. Perhaps not. But they were denied the chance of a better outcome and for that they deserve a public, albeit necessarily anonymous, apology.
"We failed them. The system failed them."