• Page:
  • 1

TOPIC: MP calls on Government for family court proceedings review

MP calls on Government for family court proceedings review 1 month 3 weeks ago #110960

  • Bill337
  • Bill337's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Moderator
  • Moderator
  • Posts: 2774
  • Thank you received: 416
AN MP has urged the Government to review family court proceedings after many fathers described the process as “tortuous”.

Philip Davies MP (Shipley, Conservative) said suicide rates among men were three times higher than women in the UK and referenced that charities fear being apart from children increases the risk of harm to absent fathers.

Speaking in a debate he secured with Mansfield MP Ben Bradley to mark International Men’s Day, he said: “It is quite clear to me that we need to do a lot more to ensure that fathers are not stopped from seeing their children, to save lives. In these Covid lockdown times, it is too easy to imagine how this will be causing even more mental health problems and, unfortunately, more suicides.”


Mr Davies has previously campaigned to include parental alienation as an example of abuse in the Domestic Abuse Bill, and now wants action over court proceedings. He believes Government must make it easier for absent fathers to have access to their children and speed up the process through family courts, which is “often a tortuous one that causes so much heartache”.

Mr Davies said: “I know of men who have had their lives ruined because of a relationship breakdown, which has needlessly led to a whole family breakdown and, in some cases, a mental breakdown, too. I have talked about parental alienation before and do not apologise for mentioning it again. It is quite simply abuse, and the many people who have written to me with heart-breaking personal stories show how this happens all too often. It is abuse against the alienated parent—not just men—and against the sons and daughters of the parent. It also affects a whole host of people in the wider family.”

Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch praised Mr Davies for his “tireless work” on the issue and for ensuring parental alienation was an example of coercive or controlling behaviour.

Mr Davies also wants action taken over anyone stopping the absent parent seeing their child during Covid-19 restrictions.


He added: “While I oppose the lockdown and wish it was not happening, it is and the rules have been very clear from the start. Children can travel between households of separated parents. No one should use this pandemic as a reason to keep a child away from a parent.”

www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/1889...-proceedings-review/
The following user(s) said Thank You: actd, Djsmith

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or trained professional. I am not in a position to give legal advice. Please consult a qualified professional for legal advice.

MP calls on Government for family court proceedings review 1 month 3 weeks ago #110966

It is good to hear they are talking about this, but sadly I cannot see anything changing. While cafcass and social services tend to always side with the female, we have no chance of this changing.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

MP calls on Government for family court proceedings review 1 month 3 weeks ago #110971

Agree so so 1 sided and the courts are always blinded to the fact that it takes 2 and Drama involved stress but as children involved (Hands up move out give x everything even though they are as much at fault) but they sling everything at us and we have to sit back and take it.
The Law is 1 big Joke that will always side with the female and give Dads a Raw deal!

That's my take but I'm going through all this and see it first hand at the end we are real people and the courts / Cafcass who twist and rewrite then delay submittal an hr before the court entry then you have to agree if you don't then your excused being awkward.
So yes the Law has to change and the legal Aid system while at it.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Page:
  • 1