I think I've been agreeing with everyone pretty much recently and certainly didn't mean to impune the judges as being biased or anything like that (in my experience those I met were fine).
I couldn't say the same for their family court advisors though - now called "Cafcass officers" - social workers of a kind, who when they weren't covering up my ex.'s lies were telling their own!).
Here are some more comments from Lord Justice Munby about the same case I've already highlighted, although I had failed myself to fully realise before how devastating his criticisms are, as can be seen here:-
"Mr Justice Munby. The law itself is the problem and the system that implements that primary injustice compounds it."
In an attempt to defuse the situation, the Government has introduced pilot projects based on mediation between parents, but fathers' groups say they are too little, too late. They point out that 40 per cent of divorced fathers lose contact with their children after just two years. The same percentage of mothers admit to "thwarting contact" between children and their fathers.
Mr Justice Munby, 55, who has a son and a daughter, said a lack of resources and "scandalous" court delays were major problems.
But he also regarded the legal process as "adversarial" and counter-productive because it focused on the arguments of the parents, not the child. "There is much wrong with our system and the time has come for us to recognise that [or] risk forfeiting public confidence," he said.
In the particular case of the father and his daughter, Mr Justice Munby focused on the system's failure to prevent the mother from ignoring contact arrangements.
Among the many excuses put forward by the mother was that the child, known only as D, was frightened by the father's chastisement of her, that D was forcibly fed by him and that he threatened not to return her after contact.
"All those allegations, I emphasise, were groundless. Conspicuously absent, also, are any judicial findings supporting the mother's allegations of domestic violence."
The parents separated when their daughter was two, with the father allowed to see her every Saturday. But the mother attempted to "sabotage" contact and was in contempt of court. On one occasion she was jailed for two weeks for a "flagrant breach of court orders".
Matters came to a head in December 2001, the last time the father saw his daughter, when he lost his temper with the child's mother. "The father behaved most foolishly. But the mother needs to ask herself why," said Mr Justice Munby.
"The plain answer is that it was her constant sabotage of contact that goaded him beyond endurance."
"What is this father supposed to do? Just walk away from his daughter in the faint hope that perhaps if he does not press for contact something will happen? Surely not."
"Is he to be criticised for continuing to invoke what thus far has proved to be the wholly inadequate assistance of the court? Certainly not. He would, in my judgment, be fully justified if he believed as a responsible and loving father that the time for appeasing the mother had come to an end."
The case had spent nearly five years in the courts. There were 43 hearings conducted by 16 different judges and more than 950 pages of evidence.
Mr Justice Munby said that where a mother thwarted contact on a Saturday, she should be ordered to attend court on the Monday and, if she did not, she should be arrested. She could be told that if she thwarted contact again, she would be jailed for up to three days.
While committal was "the remedy of last resort", it might "achieve the necessary coercive effect without significantly impairing a mother's ability to look after her children".