Contact information

Introduction

Structure of this response

We have structured our response to address the following issues :

• it is important to understand the current practices and policies before considering improvements

• there are fundamental ethical and moral principles to which all societies must adhere, and which must apply to matrimonial and family laws, in order to be categorised as civilised.

Content

We have therefore structured our response to include :

Previous research by the Cheltenham Group

The Cheltenham Group has researched current policies and practices, and published the findings.

A copy of each major report is provided with this response. The reports are also available on the Internet as follows :

 A more convenient way to access these reports on the Internet is to enter at www.c-g.org.uk. Then select as follows :

• for references [1, 2], select ‘publications’ then ‘the bookshelf’

• for reference [3] select ‘campaigns’ then ‘human rights for men’.

Note on terminology

It is recognised that it is almost always women who cause obstruction to contact and make false allegations about the behaviour of men to achieve this. In this response therefore the term ‘mother’ is used for the party who is guilty of causing obstruction and the term ‘father’ for the parent who is obstructed.

1. The facts

1.1 ‘No-fault divorce’ principle

A ‘no-fault’ divorce system has been introduced by the senior judges, against the principles laid down by Parliament in the written laws, and without public approval or knowledge, specifically :

• with respect to custody of children since 1948 (Allen v Allen, CoA) that mothers are given custody of children after separation/divorce, no matter what their behaviour in the case;

• with respect to assets (since 1973, Wachtel v Wachtel, CoA). Judges use the excuse that the mother ‘needs’ assets to look after the children, i.e. a communist principle of ‘need’ is applied to confiscation and distribution of assets;

• maintenance for women (since 1973) and for children (since 1991, in Child Support Act 1991) is not based on the behaviour of the women, so they may conduct themselves in any manner of immoral or unethical behaviour, but still obtain the financial benefits from the husband, and so profit from divorce, even when re-married.

As a result of this corruption, women may abandon a marriage but still continue to obtain the benefits of the marriage, and profit by the divorce, while men have no such options.

1.2 ‘Children’s interests paramount’ principle

This principle has ensured that the interests of the parties to a case, i.e. the father and mother, are secondary to the interests of others i.e. of the children’s interests. We do not know of any other area of civil law in which the interests of others come before the parties to a case.

This also has been introduced without public approval or knowledge.

This principle has allowed judges to subvert the written law, and to ensure that many decent men are cut off from involvement in their children’s lives for no good reason. The reason they are cut off in reality is that the mother wanted this and the judges will not bring sanctions against the mother. This has resulted in the disenfranchisement of decent men on a large scale, and the extraction by lawyers of monies for no real services to their men clients. Family assets are usually consumed without benefit to anyone except lawyers.

1.3 Corruption, degeneracy, and deep-seated injustices

Current practices are reasonably described as corrupt (as the practices have never been approved by Parliament or the public in a democratic process), and degenerate (as they are damaging for society). And this system has created deep-seated injustices to decent men on a large scale [1].

The situation has become such that decent men have to endure the humiliation of demonstrating in court that they are worthy fathers to their own children. Meanwhile women are allowed any type of behaviour, and are rewarded financially with the man’s life savings and future income, and lawyers make a handsome living from the system.

One of the prime duties of a judge is to protect the interests of innocent parties, whether in criminal or civil law, yet judges are not only in dereliction of this duty, but regularly give abuse to men [1].

1.4 Those involved in this corruption

The senior judges are primarily responsible for the situation, but aided with corrupt practices by judges in the lower courts, barristers, solicitors, and court welfare officers [1].

Most notable and blatant of these is the illegal and subversive NAPO Anti-Sexism Policy [2] operated by court welfare officers.

Submissions to responsible authorities have not obtained any remedy to these issues. Examples are given in [2, 3]. There are therefore no effective control mechanisms by competent authorities.

1.5 Feedback and knowledge of effectiveness of current policies

There is no feedback to courts about the effectiveness of their decisions, on any of the aspects of :

• how children progress

• the effects on the lives of the parties

• and the parties’ satisfaction with the court process and court decisions.

The Lord Chancellor’s Department has no mechanisms whatever for asking the opinions or obtaining feedback from those who have actually used the court process.

The Lord Chancellor’s Research Secretariat only obtains advice from academic social science departments and lawyers. Both of these groups have vested interests : social science being dominated by feminists who have an anti-men agenda, and lawyers who have a financial interest in the continuation of a high divorce rate and protracted legal actions. Men’s views are not represented in the research.

Judges and policy makers, including the Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC), are therefore acting almost entirely without knowledge of what they are doing to society.

1.6 The feminist agenda

As feminists have claimed that marriage ‘oppresses’ women [3], it has been the single most important component of the feminist agenda, for the last 30 years and more, to destroy marriage and men’s rights in the family. They have almost 100% succeeded in this objective, as marriage is now legally meaningless [3] and men’s rights in law are negligible [1].

The compliance of judges with feminist demands is such that :

• fathers are cut off from their children on only the request of the mother

• false allegation of mothers are condoned, even when men’s lives are subsequently destroyed by a jail sentence

• women are allowed regularly to be in contempt of court about contact orders without constraint, while men are regularly jailed for contempt on trivial issues

• many other serious aspects, such as state provision of legal aid for women, and women profiting financially from the divorce process, are allowed to continue [1].

2. Response : Q1 - Principles

The principles proposed by Drs Sturge and Glaser are essentially those of the feminist agenda. The principles proposed are that the "child’s mental health remains the central issue" and "contact can only be an issue where it has the potential for benefiting the child in some way". In a culture in which mothers are usually given custody without any good reason or rationale, these principles will ensure that decent fathers are placed in a humiliating position in court, in which they have a burden to prove they are somehow beneficial to their very own children. Such principles are designed of course to ensure that fathers are placed in such a position. The principles proposed are ethically degenerate and obscene, and have no place in a supposedly civilised society.

To illustrate the degeneracy and illogicality of the proposed principles, we point out that they include the concept that "the purpose of any proposed contact must be overtly and abundantly clear" but that one of the purposes is that of "severing relationships, for example goodbye meetings" i.e. to cut contact. Also, within the principles, the issue that children see their father, or vice versa, has to be shown to serve some ‘purpose’. No more clearer indication of the real agenda of the authors of the proposed principles needs to be given.

We do not believe that "mainstream psychiatric opinion" should be involved in issues of principle, ethics and morality, within a major unit of society i.e. marriage and the family. In our opinion, the proposal of such policy positions and principles demonstrates the moral and ethical degeneracy of those involved, including members of the Children Act Sub-Committee.

The prime principle should be based on ‘fault’ in marriage, and the protection of innocent men. Children’s interests should only be a factor when a parent is not capable of caring for the children.

3. Response : Q48 – Judges’ views

The judges of the UK have abused their position of power by :

• illegal case law decisions and practices, and acting outside of Parliament’s authority [1]

• being complicit in the destruction of legal marriage and father’s rights in the family [3]

• subjecting fathers to humiliating treatment in court [1]

• operating without any feedback mechanisms from actual court users.

The judges are therefore either :

• totally inadequately informed

• ignorant of the effects of their decisions

• mentally deranged

• villainous

or some combination of these.

Being inadequately informed, or ignorant of the effects of their decisions, may be partly understandable given the total lack of feedback. However judges are supposedly intelligent well-informed individuals, have major responsibilities, and are on very high salaries.

As a most significant example of judges’ degeneracy, we can refer to Ormrod. This judge was involved in the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce. He is quoted (in section 4.22) as stating that a "committal order would not conceivably be in the best interests of the children … [as] … their father would be branded in their eyes as the man who had put their mother in prison". However he fails to mention that such a consideration of blame could be made by children :

• to the mother who broke up the marriage (as is usually the case) and so was responsible for the situation leading to court action

• to the mother who caused the break-up of a stable family unit

• to the mother who practices Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) i.e. poisoning the children’s minds against the father, in order to separate them from their father

• with regard to any criminal proceedings against a parent which may result in a prison sentence, e.g. of burglary or theft, when the outcomes of the misbehaviour to the victim are usually far less serious than in divorce for a wronged party.

Further, Ormrod does not mention :

• that it is judges, operating within the law, who would "put their mother in prison" and should be seen to do so for good reason

• the degenerate effect on children’s moral outlook, if they witness the rewarding of misbehaviour in marriage on the part of one parent, as is the case with mothers at present

• the effect that without sanctions fathers are left defenceless.

It is considered that Ormrod has used arguments, on an extremely selective basis, as part of the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce and the disenfranchisement of fathers.

The simple fact, which judges prefer to ignore, is that without sanctions, mothers will continue to misbehave as they currently do.

Because of these considerations, no policy making body should accept the views of these degenerate judges, who have forfeited any right of respect for their opinions.

4. Response : Q50 - What happens in other countries

We note that the ‘other countries’ practices considered are only those of Europe and the Western World. Given that the UK is such a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic society, we consider that Third World country practices should be considered.

Within the Third World, marriage and the ethical and moral principles enshrined within its customs are entirely different. We cannot envisage a man having to plead in court to be allowed to see his children in any Third World country. The UK’s ethnic minorities do not suffer from the divorce epidemic because of their cultural attitudes, and family units thrive compared with the indigenous population.

We note that practices in other countries have been looked at by feminists to ‘cherry-pick’ the best from their degenerate perspective. We believe that the policy makers of the UK, the Children Act Sub-Committee included, should refer to first principles, not overseas practices. We believe the honest decent people of the UK are quite capable of setting their own ethical and moral principles.

5. Response : Q9 & Q10 - CAFCASS

CAFCASS should only be involved in contact issues if the staff are not drawn from the previous court welfare service, whose members are known to have persecuted decent men with dishonest reports [1]. As members of the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) they have operated the subversive and illegal NAPO Anti-sexism Policy, see section 9.2 and [2].

6. Response : Q49 - Human Rights Act 1998

This would only be useful with radical retraining of judges. To illustrate that this would be essential, we refer to the judgement of Ward and Buxton LJ, Court of Appeal, 29 February 2000 (report available at www.c-g.org.uk/camp/hr/ga.htm).

The mother wished to move with the child, of which she had custody, from the UK to New York, on the pretext that she could more easily obtain work in New York than in the UK. The father did not want his child moved as obviously he would be permanently cut off from any contact, and appealed a county court decision. Her case was treated as a potential violation of article 8.1 (respect for private and family life) while his was under article 8.1 (respect for family life). The judges essentially had to balance her rights with his under article 8.1, and decided that her right to take a job of her choice was more important than whether he ever saw his children again.

This decision is so absurdly unbalanced, that we believe these judges can only be described as being mentally deranged.

7. Response : Q52 & Q53 - Research

It is essential that research is done into the views of those who have actually used the court process, rather than social science academics and lawyers. As the judges do not receive any feedback from court users of the effectiveness or acceptability of their decisions, this research should be of the highest priority compared with existing research programmes.

8. Response : Other specific questions

We do not intend to attempt to respond to the majority of questions as they are based on the degenerate principles of Drs Sturge and Glaser, or the views of corrupt and degenerate judges who have a record of violating innocent men’s lives.

9.1 Children taken a distance or overseas

Children taken to a distance or overseas by a mother will be immediately cut-off from their father. No written laws or case law exists to prevent this destruction of father/child relationship through these actions by the mother. We find it appalling that this is not addressed in the proposals.

9.2 The NAPO Anti-sexism Policy [2]

This policy is intended to deny men rights over their children in contested children’s cases. The authoring and distribution of this policy to court welfare officers is correctly referred to as the criminal offence of ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’. The competent authorities in the UK have refused [2] to address this policy, and no-one has been prosecuted for this crime. Again, we find it appalling that this is not addressed in the proposals.

9.3 Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)

This syndrome is essentially that of the mother poisoning the mind of the child against the father to ensure that contact is cut. It is now well documented and researched, and accepted by the European Court of Human Rights (as in the case of Elsholz v Germany, judgement 13 July 2000, available at www.c-g.org.uk/camp/hr/elsholz.htm) as an established behaviour pattern.

Information on PAS is readily available e.g. at website www.fact.on.ca/Info/info_pas.htm.

Again, we find it appalling that this is not addressed in the proposals.

10. Conclusions and recommendations

10.1 About current practices

The existing legal system is corrupt, degenerate and out of control of any competent authority.

This situation has come about because degenerate principles have been allowed to be introduced by feminists whose agenda it has been to destroy marriage and hence men’s rights in the family. The degenerate principles are :

• ‘No-fault divorce’ principle

• ‘Children’s interests paramount’ principle

These principles have been allowed to be established with malpractices by judges, barristers, solicitors and court welfare officers, and with a lack of control by any competent authority.

The effects of this are that fathers are being persecuted, and humiliated in court by having to prove their worth as fathers to their own children. This burden of evidence is not applied to mothers. The costs of on-going court action is prohibitive and prevents satisfactory resolution for men.

10.2 What needs to be done

The prime duty of a judge is to protect the interests of innocent parties. That is the only basis on which the law will be a factor for moderation of behaviour in society, and provide support for marriage, and that bad behaviour will not be rewarded. The judges are in dereliction of this duty.

In order to remedy this, the entire culture requires to be overhauled. The situation for men is so serious, comparable to that of the Jews in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, that radical steps are required.

10.3 Making contact work

In terms of ‘Making Contact Work’ there clearly has to be an immediate sanction against obstruction and false allegations. Any obstruction or false allegations should result in an immediate custodial sentence and transfer of custody. As mothers have been encouraged by judges, and allowed to believe for 30 years and more, that they may do as they please, only direct penalties for these offences will change the culture.

10.4 Other recommendations for remedies

It is further recommended that :

1. the written law enforces the judges’ prime duty of care to innocent men

2. the ‘no-fault’ principle be abolished

3. the ‘children’s interests paramount’ principle be abolished, while children’s interests should be considered, they should never be considered above those of the parties to a case

4. judges’ discretion to be entirely removed as they have grossly abused that discretion

5. regular feedback from court users to an independent competent authority, which would publish its findings, and this to be obligatory, about :

i) the effectiveness of decisions over children’s upbringing

ii) the satisfaction of parties to cases over court procedures and decisions

6. no mother should be allowed to remove the children a distance or overseas

7. legal action should be readily affordable by ordinary decent men

8. those involved in the authoring and distribution of the NAPO Anti-sexism Policy to be prosecuted for the criminal offence of ‘conspiracy to pervert the course of justice’

9. all judges who have ignored the written law and practised the degenerate principles to be disciplined by dismissal and removal of pension rights

10. all men who have been the victims of the present corruption to be given full compensation.

All these recommendations should be established within the written law, so that the present degeneracy will not be repeated. This will also provide that those intending marriage should readily know their rights and responsibilities that will be upheld by law. And know these before marriage, rather than finding out afterwards, at separation and divorce.

Postscript

We expect many more responses from feminist groups about these proposals, emphasising ‘children’s interests as paramount’ as :

• they understand that the use of this strategy will reduce the significance of marriage and eliminate men’s rights in the family

• they are very well organised and funded by national government etc.

• they are fanatical in their beliefs that marriage, and men’s rights in the family, having caused women’s ‘oppression’, should not be restored.

References

1. The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence, 2^nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, February 1998, ISBN 1 900080 03 6.

2. The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, The Cheltenham Group, 11 June 1998.

3. Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Commission : Violations of Articles 23 & 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) by the United Kingdom (UK), The Cheltenham Group, 28 April 1999.

These publications are readily available world-wide on the Internet.

A convenient access is to enter at www.c-g.org.uk. Then select as follows :

• for references [1, 2], select ‘publications’ then ‘the bookshelf’

• for reference [3] select ‘campaigns’ then ‘human rights for men’.

(enter at http://www.c-g.org.uk selecting ‘campaigns’)

For further information you may contact :

The Cheltenham Group

PO Box 205, Cheltenham, Glos, GL51 0YL

Director : Barry Worrall BSc MSc MBCS CISE CEng