One aspect of our family law that is worth remembering is that the "Children's Act 1989" left provisions for the judges to revise certain parts of it without returning to parliament.
My lawyer told me that a few years down the line from it's introduction in 1989 the judges decided that "The ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child" should become the top priority to consider in the "welfare checklist" instead of just one of a number of considerations (much to Frank's chagrin).
I have reason to remember this because not only was this used against me but also my ex.wife and her new husband had the pleasure of telling me of the change in the law and how it would help thme remove me (in effect that is what they were saying when they told me "the law was now on their side" or "the child's side" as they pretended ws the case).
I have heard you make your views clear before about these matters so was expecting you to say something like this:- "Pass a new law, change a term, it will affect nothing until you change the system."
If that is so Clark then the resistance of the lawmakers in parliaments across the world must be a very strange phenomenom for you to witness. Why are they behaving as though changing the law will have a huge impact, especially anything that affects BIC paramountcy.
As I have told Frank too many times to recall how often, our Tory party has made tentative proposals to introduce a legal presumption in favour of contact for decent parents (they aren't in governemnt of course, but stirred up some controversy because usually family law proposals are agreed by all parties). Other jurisdictions are refusing to accept BIC paramountcy and so on - you agree with me on this fight I believe.
Where do we go from here?
There are a number of choices, and alot depends on the intelligence of the electorate and the honesty/integrity of the politicians.
I have read recently a similar justification for BIC to the one Frank uses - exactly the kind of thing Jim is trying to challenge in his court action (are you telling him to give up his fight because it is the "system" that is at fault?). I will try to post it for you so that you can "examine" the opposition once again, if you wish. All it seems to be based on is some bland assertion that fathers (or any parents really) asking for more rights will only count against them getting more rights. You feel as though you have entered a real "Alice in Wonderland" world, or a "Through the Looking Glass" world to use the US term for the famous fairy story.
I hope you can agree with me Clark, because as Frank so eagerly points out there are not many of us fighting BIC at all. It is amazing to me that I can as yet find no group specifically making the same points we're making about it, and using it as their target. There are some rare individuals who aren't kidded by it though, so that leaves some cause for hope.
All the best, Graham
P.S, If you think I'm obsessed and doing myself or my cause no favours by my efforts then you may be right there. I am looking for a good leader to articulate all these issues - our Tory party is looking for a good leader at the moment too. Whether he will be the man to change all this family law/BIC nonesense for us here remains to be seen.