Family Court

[Calvados]

A relative has been seperated fom her ex for 5 years and he has been refused access to the children all that time. He now wants access but the children don't want to see him. He is a violent alcoholic. Regardless of all the circumstances, their mother is worried that he may be granted access via a contact centre. We know of cases where the father has been granted access when the children didn't want it. Surely this can't be right, even if the court accepts that he has changed? Could this happen against the childrens' wishes? Some cases indicate that it could and that is totally wrong in my opinion.

[pixie373]

How old are the children?

[1ndex]

Recovering addicts deserve the chance to build bridges for their misdeeds. Surely the father can see them with a social worker present.

[Calvados]

Children are 11, 8 and 6. They don't want anything to do with him. The oldest one was really ill last time he tried to gain access. She was frightened that she might have to meet him at a contact centre and it badly affected her school work.

[chrisgel]

In the interest of fairness access via a contact centre is the way to go. Without knowing the circumstances how can anyone be sure that the kids don't want to see their father because of what the mother has been saying to them.
A neutral access, supervised by social sevices will be able to evaluate the interaction between father and children and recommend any future interaction.

[bednobs]

yes, it's true, even if the children don't want to see him, contact could be ordered by the court. It needn't be a bad thing tho

[pixie373]

I think the children are too young to know what's best for them. I believe courts take the child's view into account at about 13 years(?) but doesn't mean they will agree

[Calvados]

Typical response from Chrisgel. The two oldest remember how violent he was and how frightened they were. They remember how he used to hit their mother and how drunk he always was. Actions speak louder than words and children don't forget things like this.

[bednobs]

what do you mean "typical response"? If by typical you mean what everyone else is saying, then yes i suppose it is typical

[bednobs]

not many childrrn have memories (good or bad) from when they were three. I accept that he/she could remember being frightened, but to be able to link it to a particular face they haven't seen for five years seems to stretch the probable

[chrisgel]

Calvados - Whoa, you never mentioned any of that in your OP. Might I suggest that if you're going to post on a Question and Answer site that you include all information that is relevant.
I am not some kind of monster and I believe that the childrens interest always come first.
I am extremely offended that you are accusing me of being "typical".
I don't know anything apart from what you originally posted and you don't know anything at all about me.

[1ndex]

Mother can refuse access if she proves father to still be an addict. If father can prove he is recovering the court will favour him

[Calvados]

People assume the mother is influencing them, when it's the memory of him that is the reason they don;t want to see him. They're really frightened that they will have to see him. Their mother has asked them to write to him but they don't want to. They don't want to. Get it? It's not their mother that's influencing them - it's him and his ways. He recently had a conviction for DD. The local social services wrote to their mother and to their school warn them to be on their guard against him.

[bednobs]

in all fairness how do YOU know the mother isn't influencing them?

[chrisgel]

I call *** on this post. I believe that you are the mother and you are trying to manipulate the responses that you get.

[Calvados]

Ok. Their mother is my daughter. I've asked them to write to him. What we don't want is people saying their mother is influencing them, and I know she isn't. But it seems a typical reponse that she must be. I could give you endless examples of how he has let them down. He doesn't pay anything towrds the upkeep of them, despite the fact that he has his own business and the CSA are chasing him.

[FredPuli43]

It's the court's problem to work out from the evidence of various social workers and, if needed, a psychologist specialising in child psychology, who have seen the children and the parents, what is in the best interests of the children.

They have a lot more experience of these cases than you have. This kind of case is very common. Yours is close to you, which may not make you an objective judge.

[chrisgel]

If you were upfront from the start I would have offered my advice for what it's worth, You seem like you want to only get advice that agrees with you so I'm out. As they say.

[Calvados]

Way, way out, actually Chris.

[sunny-dave]

I'm afraid I agree with Chris - there is little point coming on a site and asking a quite emotively phrased question and then crying 'foul' when you don't get exactly the responses you want.

[bednobs]

anyway, all that aside, the answer to your question is "yes", so it might be worthwhile your family working out how they are going to support the children when they have to see him