The Forum > Article Comments > Child abuse in the Family Court > Comments
Child abuse in the Family Court : Comments
By Sunita Shaunak, published 29/7/2008The prevailing view of 'highly qualified experts' used by the Family Court is that many protective parents lie about their child's abuse.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 26
- 27
- 28
- Page 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
-
- All
I still feel that I am on trial for trying to restore contact with my grandchildren in order to protect them.
Since the failed hearing in August which I was not allowed to attend, a recurring commment I have heard is that I can't do anyhing because I signed the Consent Orders for minimal indirect contact just before the Hearing. I did so under threat of losing contact altogether and I was allowed no time to consider, or offered alternatives.
I mention this now as I would like to know if my experience was typical, or whether I was just unlucky or too trusting of the legal sytem.
Ordinarily there is a "cooling off" period for major transactions but I had to make an instant and irrevocable decision and did not even receive a record of what I had signed. There is no provision for a review even if my legal etc complaints are successful.
Any reasonable person reading the files would be able to detect the faulty logic, deceptions and mental illnesses of the defendants. This means either that the files were not read properly or that they were considered to be irrelevant because the parents have ownership of the children which over-rides all other considerations.
No one associated with the case AT THAT TIME was prepared to take the necessary steps to obtain justice for them.
As all reading this will know, I am trying to have the case reopened which is expensive and time-consuming. Meantime my grandchildren are still at risk.
I was allowed one of my rare phone calls yesterday for a child's birthday. Even then a parent caused a backgroubnd disturbance which interfered with our conversation. There is nothing I can do about this, as records would show only the fact that the call was received, not the quality of it.