Family Court - Update

[Calvados]

Some of you may remember I posted about this back in May. The case was heard on Tues and was deferred pending a recommendation for dismissal on the grounds that the children do not want any contact. It was deferred because the person hearing the case was only a legal adviser, not a judge. Only a judge can make that ruling.

[albaqwerty]

this is what Calvados is asking about

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Family/Question1244135.html

[ladybirder]

Why the heck wasn't a judge there Calvados? Seems like that was a waste of everybody's time.

[Calvados]

I think it's due to cut backs. A lot of these cases are now heard before a legal adviser, rather than a judge. Where a decision like this is required, only a judge can do it, hence the referral.

[ladybirder]

So any idea how long you'll have to wait for a decision now then?

[Calvados]

I think it's next month but it looks like he's accepted that he will not get to see them any time soon. People may think it's hard on him and he's stopped drinking in an effort to gain access, but the children remember all the badness that went before and don't want to see him. But I think he's not doing the right things to make them WANT to see him. He does write to them, but it's all about him. For instance, the eldest starts senior school this year and he's not once asked about which school she will be going to. Asked about results or progress. It's all him. The children may change their minds when they get older, but I wouldn't think so as the eldest wants to change her name when she's 16.

[ladybirder]

Well I wouldn't count your chickens just yet Calvados. Better to wait until you hear what the judge has to say really. Not too long to wait, next month starts on Monday:-)

[Calvados]

The recommenation from Cafcass was for dismissal. The father has been advised of that and indications are that he has accepted it. The legal opinion is that the judge will not go against the recommendation. We'll see. I'll let you know.