I've just been watching some out-takes from the Jeremy Kyle show in the UK, (read a cross between Jerry Springer and Oprah Winfrey). Anyway this black couple or former couple were being encouraged to speak to a counsellor or counsellors in relation to their son, because although they'd both apparently decided their own relationship was over the programme makers, or professionals assisting them wished to emphasise the fact that both the parent's relationship with the child wasn't, or shouldn't be over.
What made the short clip of the programme interesting to me was that the mother, when asked by the counsellor whether she would allow her son to see his father said "NO". Then she said it was because "He wasn't a good father".
The man said he loved his son although he appeared to be prepared to give up trying to see him if the mother didn't agree to him getting any contact.
So what is so noteworthy in all this?
Well it was just that the mother appeared to feel invulnerable, as though she could deem the father good or bad just as she wished (he'd been good enough for her to form a relationship with in the first place and choose to have a child with but........I've made all these arguments before I know, so will stop now). The mother was told by the counsellor that the child would suffer through not seeing their father, but the mother wasn't having any of it, and said he wouldn't suffer. Then she walked out of the room and refused to listen to any more the counsellor wished to tell her. I must admit I had to admire her honesty, saying she wasn't going to cooperate, and her strength of charater for defying them all.
So, as I've said already, what to make of it? You would have thought the father could use the footage from the show to show to a family court judge as evidence that the mother had no intentions of cooperating. However, if he did this, and if the court decided it was admissable (assuming it was necessary, as from what I could see the mother would repeat what she said to anyone who wanted to listen), where would it get him? Wouldn't the judge feel just about as helpless as the TV counsellor was or looked, his protestations (that's too strong a word for it, maybe pious words would be a better term) telling everyone the child needed their father was simply going to be ignored no matter what they did, isn't that so?
To return to this thread therefore, and the millionaire seeking the only kind of redress apparently open to him under or outside the "best interests of the child" sole criterion family law legislation, forcing the courts to appreciate the loss to one of us fathers, (or non-custodial parents) as a way of highlighting what is going unchecked - alienation or exclusion of decent parents for no good reason.
I believe the family law should be changed as everyone who comes to this forum and has read anything I've posted should know. However I am just one person obviously, and when I go to forums representing other parents I often find the members there in effect refusing increased parental rights (or protection for non-custodial parental rights). My ideas appear to be in an extreme minority therefore, but I can look at whatever anyone else is doing or proposing in relation to family law through my own ideological framework, and enjoy actions on behalf of excluded parents like myself, such as this millionaire's action. I have thought my ex. shouldn't be completely free from the influence of the law, if her actions to alienate my daughter could be adequately proved. So I wish this man luck, although I doubt it will make him or his children happy even if he were to win. Once our children are brought up to feel as though the rejection of one of their parents is okay, nay desireable or indeed their right, no amount of compensation money is going to change that situation as we all know.
Graham