There is Hope!


Here are two stories showing examples of how sensible Judges despair of Social Services support facilities.

Judge Slams Deficient Social Work Assessment in 'Extraordinary' Case


Social Worker's actions were "most acute" example of several agencies' failure to interrogate mother's claims against father


By Andy McNicoll, 28th June 2016, Our 'Thanks' to

A judge has criticised “patent deficiencies” in a social worker’s assessment of child abuse claims against a father that were later found to be false.

In his judgment, Justice MacDonald said the social worker’s child protection investigation showed a “complete disregard” of good practice guidance when examining a mother’s claims that the man, TH, had subject her, the man’s son and another of the woman’s children to serious emotional, physical and sexual abuse.

The social worker’s assessment was the “most acute” example of a failure of almost all agencies involved with the children to interrogate the mother’s claims properly, the judge found.

File, Court Decisions

‘Unquestioning acceptance’

The social worker’s “unquestioning acceptance” of the mother’s account meant she failed to make basic enquiries to the father, extended families or the children’s former schools or local authorities, MacDonald said. The mother had told the social worker it would be “too dangerous” to make the enquiries as TH could track down the family and kidnap the children.

The judge said “such enquiries would have revealed a fundamentally different picture to that being painted by the mother”. He found all of the allegations made by the mother were false and concluded she had placed “unwarranted pressure” on the children by actively coaching them to back up the allegations.

“[The social worker’s] failure to challenge the mother’s account and accept it at face value meant that she permitted the mother to dictate completely the frame of reference for the actions of the local authority and other agencies and meant that the mother succeeded in portraying herself and the children as victims of serious physical and sexual abuse when in fact they were not,” MacDonald said.

The case involved Scottish and English agencies. Prior to August 2014, both children lived in Scotland, with TH’s son living predominantly with him. In July 2014 the mother commenced a relationship with a man in England. In August 2014 when both boys were in her care in England, she refused to return, or return them to Scotland. TH launched proceedings in Scotland to secure the return of his son to his care.

‘Quite extraordinary case’

MacDonald found that failures in the way professionals had handled the case had contributed to the difficulties assessing evidence, “materially prejudiced the welfare of both children” and contributed to their emotional harm. In addition to the social work assessment he pointed to:

  • A failure by social workers, police and teachers to keep accurate records of what the mother and children had said. This resulted in accounts that were “diametrically opposed”.

  • The “poor quality” of assessing best evidence interviews, including the repeated use of leading questions and questioning one child when the other was present.

  • A failure to coordinate interventions that led the children to be questioned by 19 professionals. One child was questioned on 20 occasions and the other on 44 occasions. The boys were interviewed by five different police officers.

The judge said the case was “very troubling” and concluded: “It is important to recognise that the professional failures I have set out have had consequences.

“By reason of the failure of the relevant agencies to follow the clear and well established guidance and procedure the children were not only left in a situation where a parent was permitted to persist in conduct that was harmful to their emotional welfare but, by their omissions, those agencies actively contributed to that harm.”

He added: “When investigating allegations of child abuse, including allegations of child sex abuse, it is imperative that all professionals involved adhere to the law and guidance…so as to ensure the rigorous and fair investigation of allegations that is the foundation of ensuring the children concerned are safeguarded.

“Having listened to the evidence in this case the Children’s Guardian told the court that she considered this case to be ‘quite extraordinary’. Surveying the conduct of professionals in this case she concluded that ‘it is as if a sort of hysteria took over and prevented people from asking certain questions’. I cannot help but agree.”

Suffragents’ Question…


Will we get the dreaded ‘Lessons have been learnt’ response from the ‘professionals’ involved or will we have a change to how they are trained?

But that will take a lot of time to get rid of their brainwashed attitudes. We need decent, gender free training where the needs of children are paramount.

Judge Criticises Teacher and Domestic Violence Experts Over 'Hysterical and Paranoiac' Approach to Abuse Allegations


By Brian Farmer, 27th June 2014, Western Morning News

Teachers and specialists who help domestic violence victims “accepted without question” abuse allegations a woman made against her former partner, a family court judge has said.

Unnecessary safeguards were put in place at schools and children got caught up in an “hysterical and paranoiac” atmosphere, said Judge David Tyzack.

Judge Tyzack

School staff would almost certainly have realised that the man presented no risk had anyone “bothered” to contact him, said the judge.

The judge said the case showed that it was essential for professionals to keep an open mind and realise that allegations were not proved simply because someone made them.

He made his comments in a written ruling on the case following a hearing in a county court in Exeter, Devon.

Judge Tyzack said the case centred on a 14-year-old boy and a girl aged 11.

The judge said he had been asked to decide whether allegations their mother had made against their father were true.

He did not identify anyone involved but said the local authority with responsibility for the children’s welfare was Devon County Council.

Judge Tyzack said the man and woman had five children in total and had been together for more than 20 years.

The judge said the case related to the welfare and futures of two of those five children.

He said he had found all the mother’s allegations to be “completely untrue”.

“The allegations made by the mother are, without needing to go into all of the details, that the father physically, sexually and emotionally abused her during their 23-year relationship, during most of which they were married,” said Judge Tyzack.

“She also alleges that, as each of their five children were born, he similarly abused them.

“No allegations of any kind were made by the mother, for example to the police or social services, prior to the separation...

“However, after the separation the mother sought help from agencies that specialise in helping and advising people, mostly women, who are the victims of domestic violence.

“These included the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services and the Domestic Violence and Abuse Service.

“Both organisations of course do invaluable work in the context of assisting children and vulnerable people, but it has been a consistent feature of the evidence that this court has heard that certain professionals working in those agencies habitually accepted, without question, the allegations made against this father by the mother.

“They invariably accepted what she told them, uncritically and without any attempt to examine or investigate the other side of the coin.

“Exactly the same applies to teachers at schools attended by (the two children).

“Safeguarding procedures were put in place at their schools which were completely unnecessary.

“Had anyone from the children’s schools bothered to contact the father, they would have almost certainly realised that he presented no risk or danger, but inevitably the children were caught up in this hysterical and paranoiac atmosphere.

“There is a very real danger, in my judgment, of professionals treating the alleged victim’s allegations as completely truthful and the alleged perpetrator as a sort of pariah.

“All the allegations made by the mother in this case have been found to be completely untrue.”

Judge Tyzack said the woman had suffered from "mental ill-health" and had influenced some of the children.

He said the children had been “seriously damaged”.

“It is essential at all times for professionals to keep an open mind. Allegations of domestic violence are not proved simply by a person, however seemingly credible, making an allegation or indeed several allegations,” said the judge.

“Professionals need to be vigilant in dealing with an alleged victim of domestic violence to ascertain whether he or she is suffering from mental ill-health.”

He went on: “This court regards domestic violence, when proved, as being of the utmost seriousness. Often it involves the exploitation of the vulnerable by a dominant person. Often, when proved, it amounts to criminal behaviour. It causes massive distress, often injury, and when children are involved they too often suffer horrible abuse.

“Nothing that I have said... in any way diminishes the seriousness of this kind of behaviour and the court’s attitude to it. However, it is almost as serious, in my judgment, for a person to invent allegations of domestic violence and still worse for a parent to influence children that abuse has occurred when it has not...

“That is what I have found has happened in this case. The children involved have been so caught up in the toxic combination of the mother’s false allegations, her hysterical reaction to the father and her mental ill-health that the children have been completely estranged from their father. It is going to require very skilled work to heal and restore.”


Suffragents’ Comments…

What action will be taken on those who are incompetent?

How many more children will suffer because of ignorance and laziness of those charged to look after the paramount interests of children?

How were the mother’s allegations of the 3 types of alleged abuse substantiated, or was this another case of false allegations against a man to gain aspects of control for a mother?

These false claims have to stop, or otherwise we are on the slippery slope of no man committing to relationships and the eventual breakdown of society.

Another example of a 'Good Judge':

Judge Praises Dad Who Jetted to UK 37 Times to See Kids After Splitting from Mother as 'Remarkably Committed'


By John Shammas & Brian Farmer, 15th July 2015, Irish Mirror

His former partner tried to blacken his name in a bid to prevent him from seeing their children - but a family court judge rubbished her claims.

A dad has been singled out by a family court judge for his incredible commitment to his children after flying from Sweden to the UK 37 times in a year to see his kids following an acrimonious split with their mother.

The father has shown that he is "remarkably committed" to his children, according to Judge Lesley Newton.

His former partner and mother to the children - an 11-year-old boy and a nine-year-old girl - made damaging allegations to try and stop him from seeing the kids, a private hearing at the Family Division of the High Court in Manchester was told.

But Judge Newton said the woman had made "unconvincing" attempts to "blacken" her former partner's character by alleging that he approved of sexual relationships between young children.

Judge Wesley Newton, Aeroplane, Court Building

But Judge Newton said the woman had made "unconvincing" attempts to "blacken" her former partner's character by alleging that he approved of sexual relationships between young children.

The father of the children lives in Sweden, while the children live in England with their mother.

The judge did not identify anyone involved.

"This is a father who has much to offer his children," said the judge in a written ruling.

"He has proved remarkably committed, making, I accept, 37 flights from Sweden to the UK last year alone to see his children.

"I find the mother's objections to contact ill-founded."

The judge said the woman had lied and was "wholly unconvincing", and urged her to seek help.

"Essentially, the mother does not value the father's contribution to the lives of the children and, in reality, would much prefer to be able to get on with life with her new husband and baby without what she sees as the intrusion of contact arrangements," said Judge Newton.

"I was, for example, astonished to learn, very much in passing when I enquired about collection arrangements, that on the father's visits, whether in the UK or Sweden, the children are sent in literally the clothes in which they stand up and with their passports in their hand: no change of clothing, no favourite toys, nothing to cuddle, no books, not even a toothbrush."

The judge added: "I simply do not accept the mother's florid descriptions of the children complaining desperately that they do not want to go to see their father."

She said another judge had made an order spelling out when the man should see the children.

The man had asked for the order to be enforced, but his former partner wanted contact arrangements suspended indefinitely.

Judge Newton ruled in favour of the man.

All organisations that support fairness for children, men and grandparents should contact us at to commence discussions on the formation of a Federation focused on the exclusion of fathers and grandparents from children in our Secret Family Courts, and financial arrangements based on child arrangements. 

Support organisations that believe that children's mental health, educational and social development are being ruined on the altars of female-led ideology and are being denied genuine gender free justice as instructed by our Ministry of Justice. This is a Gender Free campaign, but at the moment it is mainly a father and his family that are the excluded persons from children's lives.

The presumption of 50/50 shared time and residence should be the start point and fair hearings based on evidence from both parties should be allowed for the sake of justice, not ideology.

The primary reasons on having Secret Family Courts dealing with Divorce and Separations are to keep people ignorant of how they can be mistreated for the benefit of those in this £47 billion industry. Without knowledge, you cannot defend yourself from these courts. Too many 'Experts' mislead a judge into making life threatening and life changing decisions.

Children's Needs Are Paramount

Are we really carrying forward the behaviour of the inquisitions into the 21st Century? Have we not progressed, and are we not more humane?