Reformation of the Family Justice System

Response

to the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s consultation paper
Promoting inter-agency working in the family justice system

Reformation of

the Family Justice System

The Cheltenham Group, May 2002

Contact information

from :

The Cheltenham Group

PO Box 205

Cheltenham

Glos

GL51 0YL

tel: (+44) (0)1242 691 110

fax: (+44) (0)1242 691 120

Director : Barry Worrall BSc MSc MBCS CISE CEng

Contents


	Synopsis
1.	Preface - about the Cheltenham Group
2.	Response to specific questions
3.	Ethical principles
4.	Postscript
	References

Synopsis

The Cheltenham Group first met in Cheltenham in 1994, and consists of prominent members of major men’s and father’s rights groups. The role of the group is to investigate and report on the abuse to which men and fathers are subjected in the law and social conventions.

This response from the Cheltenham Group has attempted to answer all questions. We provide in this synopsis our rationale, and the resulting major recommendations arising from the questions.

Rationale

Our research, in the references, shows that :

the system of matrimonial and family law is corrupt and degenerate [4]
no responsible authorities exist which are capable of dealing with the corruption [2]
the system is causing deep violations of the lives and human rights of decent men [1]
the system is built on pragmatic decisions and reasoning, and on corruption and feminist aims, rather than ethical principles which support justice, rights in the family, and the family unit [3]
those with specific agendas have assumed control of law making and policy, including corrupt judges and feminists [3, 4].

An over-riding issue is that current laws have been, and are still being made, by senior judges, so that democratic principles and Parliamentary control are missing. This is a constitutional issue.

We are concerned that matrimonial and family law should be based on appropriate ethical principles. The current system is based on pragmatics of :

what to do with children if the parents don’t agree
about fighting over assets
mothers taking advantage of some unearned future income via the Child Support Agency etc.

The system should be based on essential ethical principles which :

support the family unit and maximise its stability
encourage good behaviour in the family
discourage bad behaviour at separation and divorce
provide justice to individuals
preserve family assets at separation, and prevent lawyers making money from the process
are known to the individuals before they commit themselves to marriage and/or parenthood.

We identify essential ethical principles in section 3 of this response.

Major recommendations

We consider that a Family Justice Council could be capable of the reformation required, provided that those responsible for the previous corruption and degeneracy, i.e. judges, lawyers and feminists, are not allowed influence on the Council. To that extent we support the establishment of the Council. Our recommendations for organisation of the Council are as follows.

We recommend that the terms of reference for the Family Justice Council should include responsibilities to provide for :

ethical principles to be re-introduced into matrimonial and family law
those individuals whose lives and human rights have been violated by the present corruption and degeneracy to be given full compensation
those responsible for the present corruption and degeneracy to be brought to justice, and that feminist influence is eradicated from the law making and policy making processes and bodies
appropriate research based on the experiences of actual users of the system
publications that inform the people of the ethical principles, the law and practices, to provide full and transparent knowledge of the system to the people and to ensure that those contemplating marriage and/or parenthood know the law.

We recommend for the composition of the Family Justice Council that :

members should be mainly court users and representatives of user groups, and those of the People who support justice and rights in the family
those responsible for the present corruption and degeneracy shall be prohibited, especially judges
those with vested interests shall be prohibited, especially lawyers and feminists.

We recommend the following sub-committees :

Ethics Sub-committee : with terms of reference to define ethical principles based on the family as a basic unit of society, and the rights of well-behaved individuals, and to monitor law and practice for adherence to these principles
Compensations Sub-committee : with terms of reference to provide a mechanism for compensation to be given to those men whose lives and human rights have been violated, i.e. with terms of reference comparable with the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Reformation Sub-committee : with terms of reference to (a) investigate and bring to justice all those who have contributed to the corruption and degeneracy since 1948, including especially senior judges, lawyers, court welfare officers, the NAPO officers responsible for the NAPO Anti-sexism policy [2], and expert witnesses, etc; (b) eradicate feminist influence by prohibiting feminists access to the Council and sub-committees
Research Sub-committee : with terms of reference to obtain feedback from court users about the acceptability of court decisions, procedures and costs
Publications Sub-committee : with terms of reference to disseminate (a) the ethical basis of laws and the written law; (b) all judgements in a readily assimilated form for laymen; (c) results of the Research Sub-committee; (d) this knowledge into the school curriculum.

1. Preface - about the Cheltenham Group

Introducing the Cheltenham Group

While it is independent of other groups, it is closely allied with the UK Men’s Movement, which supports and campaigns for men’s rights to remove the discrimination against men which exists in most areas of life, but is most prominent in matrimonial and family law.

Previous research by the Cheltenham Group

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

The reports are available on the Internet as follows :

Report :	Describes :	Availability :

*The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence*	What is going on.	www.c-g.org.uk /publics/tenc/report.htm Reference [1]
*The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies*	This policy of court welfare officers, and its subversion of the law, our attempts at a remedy, and the lack of any remedy from the competent authorities.	www.c-g.org.uk /publics/tenc/annex4.htm Reference [2]
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)	How the legal institution of marriage, and men’s rights in the family, have been deliberately destroyed. This was referred by the UN to the UK Government.	www.c-g.org.uk /camp/hr/iccpra23&7.htm Reference [3]
Restoring Control over matrimonial and family law : ensuring that the people and Parliament have control over law making and policy	That the people and Parliament should assume control over matrimonial and family law.	www.c-g.org.uk /publics/rcomfl/report.htm Reference [4]

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, 4], select ‘publications’ then ‘the bookshelf’
for reference [3] select ‘campaigns’ then ‘human rights for men’.

This response

This response is itself available on the Internet at www.c-g.org.uk/camp/rfjs.htm. In this form the referenced reports may be navigated to, on only the click of the computer mouse.

We have no objection to publication of this response by the Lord Chancellor’s Department. This response will be published by the Cheltenham Group, independently of the Lord Chancellor’s Department, in hardcopy form and on the Internet.

2. Response to specific questions

Introduction

The historical background, present practices and their effects are fully documented in a recent Cheltenham Group report Restoring Control over matrimonial and family law : ensuring that the people and Parliament have control over law making and policy, The Cheltenham Group, March 2002 [4]. This report references our other reports, which may most conveniently be read on our website, as described in the Preface and References.

It is expected that the reader will be familiar with this report [4] while considering our responses to individual questions.

Responses

Q.	Our response
Q1	Are there other types of family justice related committees we have omitted? Yes, the controlling bodies of the men’s and father’s rights groups, who, unlike those listed in the consultation paper, actually represent users of the system. Further committees are required with membership of actual court users or representative of user’s groups.
Q2	Which committees function well in terms of bringing about improvements in delivering/identifying best practice and why? None of these function in any way that could be described as effective : if any of them had done so, they would have reported circumstances, and we would not observe the degenerate practices currently going on. The Cheltenham Group reported the ‘NAPO Anti-sexism policy’ to a number of organisations, including the Lord Chancellor’s Dept, all of whom refused to take any action at all over this clear attempt to subvert the laws of the UK [2]. We therefore cannot have the least confidence in any of the committees mentioned.
Q3	Do the problems we have identified regarding the existing arrangements reflect your experience? No, our experience appears to be vastly different to those who have authored this consultation exercise. The description of problems appears to assume that there is little wrong, that a few minor adjustments will improve matters, and that the present committee structures are a good basis. Our experience is based on actual use of the system. There appears to be far too many committees, many with vested interests, involved, all acting without proper terms of reference or ethical principles.
Q4	Are there other problems we have not identified? Yes, there are many major problems that are not even mentioned. There appear to be no individuals in any of the bodies or organisations who have the least understanding of what is going on in matrimonial law and its effects on society. We have identified many problems in our reports, especially [4], none of which is capable of remedy by existing bodies.
Q5	Which, if any, of the problems do you think is the most important and why? Of the problems identified in our reports, especially in [4], the most significant are : none of the committees have terms of reference based on ethical principles many of those involved have vested interests, especially lawyers who make much money from the destruction of men’s lives, and the presence of feminists who have a major objective to destroy men’s rights in the family and have already largely achieved this through the destruction of legal marriage [3].
Q6	Has any of the groups in which you are involved taken steps to address these problems, e.g. merging local groups, inviting other members, having election procedures or do you have suggestions you wish to raise here? Not in terms of organisations, but we have taken several steps to remedy the fundamental issues. Of the several initiatives taken, the most significant have been : attempts to remedy the subversion of the law by members of NAPO in the ‘NAPO Anti-sexism policy’ [2] to report the UK to the UN Human Rights Commission [3]. The latter was referred to the UK Government, but we know of no action taken to remedy this major issue. None of the bodies contacted has had the least interest in providing remedies. Our suggestion is that those responsible for the present situation act on our advice - see section 7 of [4].
Q7	What level of administrative support do you think is necessary to make local committees work effectively? No comment. This is a trivial question compared with the major issues of ethical principles and vested interests, especially of lawyers and feminists influence. These require to be resolved first before such practical matters are considered.
Q8	Do you agree that the existing arrangements need to change? Yes, they need to change vastly. By the introduction of ethical principles, and measures to remove vested interests, especially judges, lawyers and feminists.
Q9	Do you agree that there should be one overarching Council for the family justice system? If not, what alternative do you recommend? Yes, this will be a positive development, but only if the Council has no members who are judges, lawyers or feminists. This rider applies because : judges have abused their position of power [4] lawyers have a vested interest in making money feminists have a vested interest in the continued removal of men’s rights in the family and the destruction of legal marriage [4].
Q10	What do you consider to be the advantages and disadvantages of incorporating all the existing committees into one structure? Centralised control, but only providing that those involved have terms of reference based on ethical principles and do not include judges, lawyers or feminists, and are open to public scrutiny.
Q11	Do you agree with the title Family Justice Council? Yes, providing the members understand what ‘justice’ means in the context of the family, and are obliged to adhere to ethical principles which define ‘justice’.
Q12	Do you agree with the proposed areas in which objectives could be set for the Council to achieve? No, we do not agree with : the emphasis on children’s rights above those of a capable parent that the emphasis should be on those at risk, but based on ethical principles that "costs … should be minimised", but they should be eradicated for innocent parties, especially men who have earned most of the family assets. Further, we are not so much concerned that "procedures should be clear" but that men’s rights should be clear before they enter marriage and fatherhood.
Q13	Do you have other suggestions in which objectives could be set? Yes, to quote from section 7.4 ‘Recommendations for remedies’ of our report Restoring Control over matrimonial and family law [4] : It is recommended that the laws : be based on fundamental moral and ethical principles, and on the rights of individuals over their children, home, life savings and future income and pensions [see section 3] will have the approval of the people, and be notified to the people should have respect for marriage and committed individuals, and should operate to protect the interests of well-behaved individuals will not allow the rights of capable parents over their children to be subordinate to those of the courts will in future be Parliamentary laws, and that judges’ ability to make laws be removed. It is specifically recommended for Parliament to ensure that : the written law enforces the judges’ prime duty of care to innocent men the ‘no-fault’ principle be abolished the ‘children’s interests paramount’ principle be abolished; children’s interests should only be considered when parents are not capable, and should never be placed above the interests of a capable parent who would otherwise have his parental rights removed without good reason maintenance for children should be, at most, a half share of the actual cost of basic care, and should recognise the needs of the parent with care, and should be fully accountable judges’ discretion to be entirely removed as they have grossly abused that discretion 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 no mother should be allowed to remove the children a distance or overseas legal action should be readily affordable by ordinary decent men 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’ all judges who have ignored the written law and practised the degenerate principles to be disciplined by dismissal and removal of pension rights 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 corruption and degeneracy will not be repeated those intending marriage will readily know their rights and responsibilities that would be upheld by law, and to know these before marriage, rather than finding out at separation and divorce.
Q14	Are there any issues to which you consider high priority should be given? Yes, the higher priority issues are : the establishment of ethical principles, and a sub-committee to codify such principles, and to police the written law and interpretation of law by judges for adherence to the codified principles; see section 3 for guidance on this the establishment of a sub-committee for reparations which will give men compensation for the violations to their lives and human rights the establishment of a sub-committee to bring those responsible for such violations to justice use of research based on the experiences of users of the system publication of research results, ethical principles, laws and practices, to enable the people to monitor progress and outcomes of the Council’s activities.
Q15	Do you agree with the suggested terms of reference for the Council? No, the terms of reference should include : to establish ethical principles based on commitment of individuals to marriage and the family; see section 3 for guidance on this to provide compensation for those whose lives and human rights have been violated to bring those responsible for the present situation to justice. It is not appropriate to have inter-disciplinary or inter-agency working, with so many bodies. The terms of reference should emphasise that the will of the people should prevail, provide means by which that should be enforced, and that the expectations of those who commit themselves to marriage and fatherhood shall have rights which will not be subverted by corrupt judges etc.
Q16	Are there other roles you think the Council should perform? Major roles which the Council should perform are missing from the proposals : to remove feminist influence in law making and policy formulation to remove the influence of judges, whose role it should be to interpret law, rather than make law, and so to restore democratic control by the people.
Q17	Do you agree with the suggestion that detailed work could be undertaken in subject based sub-committees? Yes, provided these sub-committees are controlled to ensure compatibility of their work with the Council’s terms of reference.
Q18	Do you agree with the balance of the suggested agenda? No, it does not address the present problems.
Q19	Do you agree that the Council should meet four times a year? No, the Council should meet weekly until the present uncivilised situation is resolved.
Q20	Do you agree that the Council should produce an annual report? No, the Council should produce a weekly report explaining what it is doing to resolve all the issues identified. This report should be distributed widely among the people of the UK. There should be an annual remembrance day, similar to the Holocaust Memorial, to ensure that the present situation will never be forgotten by future generations. The Council should be required to organise this.
Q21	Do you agree that there should be a biennial national conference? No, there should be a monthly conference.
Q22	Do you think the Council should have a limited term, after which its effectiveness should be reviewed? Absolutely not. The present situation should never be allowed to be restored, and a standing Council is required to ensure this.
Q23	Do you agree with the role proposed for the central secretariat? No. This has the resonance of control without reference to the people.
Q24	Which, if any, of the ideas for disseminating best practice do you think would be effective? Do you have other suggestions? This could be useful, especially through websites and email, provided that the various women’s and feminist groups do not interfere with what is published. It is essential that the stories of ordinary men are told, and made available for wide publicity.
Q25	What do you think of the suggestions for membership of the Council? This is one of our greatest concerns. We recommend that certain types and individuals should not be allowed membership. Firstly : judges. The system of matrimonial and family law has been corrupted by judges since 1948. The senior judges have been responsible for the introduction of the present corruption and degeneracy. This is explained fully in [3]. We have a situation already in which judges are both making and enforcing law. They have operated without Parliament’s approval, and have introduced principles which the vast majority of the people would never agree with. They are acting without feedback from the system’s users. This is quite simply dictatorship by the senior judges. Part of the terms of reference of the Council is "providing advice to the Government on changes to legislation, practice and procedure". If any judges are involved, they will have authority to make recommendations to Government for further changes to the law. No judge should have such control. The role of judges in a democratic society is to ensure that written laws are followed, and they should never be involved in making law. This principle is the only principle on which democratic control by the people will be possible. It is proposed that no other than the "President of the Family Division" should chair the Council. But the present incumbent has presided over a corrupt and degenerate system for years. It is absolutely unacceptable that such a person be involved at all. Secondly : feminists. The destruction of the family, and especially men’s rights in the family, has been the most significant target set by feminists for themselves since the 1960s. They have, with the connivance of senior judges and the complicity of lawyers and court welfare (CAFCASS) officers, destroyed marriage as a legal institution. This is explained fully in [3]. At a time of judicial preference for mothers, this has rendered father’s rights in marriage not only negligible, but has resulted in the persecution of many decent men. This is described fully in [1]. Thirdly : specific individuals. Please contact us for a list of the individuals to be banned. We shall justify their inclusion on this list with evidence. To summarise those who should not be allowed membership : No judges or lawyers should be involved in the Council, and membership should be denied to anyone with a feminist history or inclinations.
Q26	Do you agree with the proposed maximum size of the Council? No, once judges and lawyers are removed a smaller Council will be adequate, and this will economise on time and expense.
Q27	Do you agree that the members of the Council should represent their constituent body? Yes.
Q28	Do you agree that each organisation should select its own representative? Yes, but the representative must not be allowed to join if they are a judge, lawyer or feminist.
Q29	How would this work where there are a number of representative bodies e.g. Law Society, Solicitors' Family Law Association and Association of Lawyers for Children? As they are lawyers groups, none of these should be allowed to have representatives.
Q30	Do you agree that the Council should have a broadly equal representation of men and women and involve representatives from ethnic communities? Yes, an equal number of men and women, and representatives of ethnic minorities where these groups have differing cultural attitudes to the family.
Q31	If yes, how do you think this could best be achieved? By having as many men’s and father’s rights representatives as women’s representatives. However, none of the women’s groups representatives should have a feminist history.
Q32	Do you think the membership should be extended to include those who do not work directly within the justice system? If so, how might these members best be selected? Yes, by having actual court users on the committee and representatives of court user groups. Those who "work directly within the justice system" should be specifically excluded.
Q33	There are concerns in the existing system that committees are too legally biased, would that remain a concern for this Council? Absolutely, there should be no lawyers at all on the Council.
Q34	Do you agree with the proposal for core membership with seconded members for specific items? Yes, in principle, but subject to our recommendations for membership in Q25.
Q35	Who should represent the users of the system? Actual users who have experienced their own cases, and representatives of user groups, particularly representatives of those persecuted by the system such as the UK Men’s Movement, and those who have independently and impartially studied the system such as the Cheltenham Group.
Q36	How best should voluntary sector groups be represented? Only those without agendas i.e. not feminists or lawyers.
Q37	Who do you think should chair the new Council? A user representative who can represent the ordinary decent people of the UK. Certainly not a judge, and absolutely not one who has presided for years over a corrupt and degenerate system.
Q38	Do you agree that there should be specialist sub-committees? Yes, without doubt. See Q39 for recommendations.
Q39	What subjects do you think it would be useful for sub-committees to address? This is one of our greatest concerns. Issues have arisen that require action by a competent authority that is concerned for justice, the family and good behaviour in the family. These issues are that : ethical principles be re-introduced into matrimonial and family law; see section 3 for guidance on this those individuals whose lives and human rights have been violated by the present corruption and degeneracy be given full compensation those responsible for the present corruption and degeneracy to be brought to justice, and that feminist influence is eradicated from the law making and policy making processes and bodies appropriate research based on the experiences of actual users of the system publications that inform the people of the ethical principles, the law and practices, to provide a wide and transparent knowledge of the system to the people and to ensure that those contemplating marriage and/or parenthood know the law. These issues must be addressed by bodies with members who agree with these objectives. An opportunity now arises to establish sub-committees of the Council with terms of reference to achieve these essential aims. We recommend the following sub-committees : Ethics Sub-committee : with terms of reference to define ethical principles based on the family as a basic unit of society, and the rights of well-behaved individuals; see section 3 for guidance on this Compensations Sub-committee : with terms of reference to provide a mechanism for compensation to be given to those men whose lives and human rights have been violated, i.e. with terms of reference comparable with the Criminal Cases Review Commission Reformation Sub-committee : with terms of reference to (a) investigate and bring to justice all those who have contributed to the corruption and degeneracy since 1948, including especially senior judges, lawyers, court welfare officers, the NAPO officers responsible for the NAPO Anti-sexism policy [2], and expert witnesses, etc; (b) eradicate feminist influence by prohibiting feminists access to the Council and sub-committees Research Sub-committee : with terms of reference to obtain feedback from court users about the acceptability of court decisions, procedures and costs Publications Sub-committee : with terms of reference to disseminate (a) the ethical basis of laws and the written law; (b) all judgements in a readily assimilated form for laymen; (c) results of the Research Sub-committee; (d) this knowledge into the school curriculum.
Q40	Do you agree that membership and the terms of reference of the committees should be flexible depending on the issue to be tackled and that they should be reviewed regularly to ensure that meetings are still needed? Yes, but in the cases of those sub-committees recommended by ourselves in Q39, these should be standing committees.
Q41	What mechanism should be used for appointments to these sub-committees? See ‘Reformation Sub-committee’ in Q39.
Q42	Which, if any, of these committee structures do you prefer or do you have an alternative proposal? The relevance of local committees is questionable, given that practices throughout the UK are similar, and especially now that Internet resources have improved communications nationally and globally. We do not see the relevance of local committees.
Q43	Would the title Local Family Justice Committee to be an appropriate one? If not, what other titles would you propose? See Q42.
Q44	Do you agree with the suggested subject matter for the local committees? See Q42.
Q45	Is it realistic to expect committees to consider family-wide issues rather than the current children focus? It is essential that the family and marriage is placed firmly at the centre of issues, not the mere pragmatics of what to do with children etc if the parties cannot agree. Committees should do as they are told, not decide their own agendas.
Q46	Of the suggestions for a structure for local committees, which option do you prefer or do you have alternative proposals? See Q42.
Q47	Is it feasible to hold meetings four times each year? Meetings should be at least weekly in order to progress the great amount of changes required in the system.
Q48	Do you agree with the proposed membership of the local committees? See Q42.
Q49	Do you have any comments about the proposed representative role of members? See Q25.
Q50	Do you agree that local committees should continue to be chaired by the designated family judge? No, judges should not be allowed any influence at all at the Council, sub-committees or local committees.
Q51	If not, who would you suggest and why? Users and users group representatives, as these are the only people who understand the effects we describe [1].

3. Ethical principles

The Cheltenham Group identifies the essential ethical principles on which matrimonial and family law, and its interpretation, shall be based as follows :

Support for marriage

Those committing themselves to marriage and/or parenthood shall know the rights and responsibilities endowed by law before commitment
The terms of matrimonial law accepted by the parties at marriage will be those applied at separation and divorce
Judges shall not have discretion to vary the written law
No one shall profit from a marriage

Matrimonial and family law

Matrimonial and family law will be decided by the People, and be fully representative of the wishes of the People in terms of the principles applied
Justice will be provided, in terms of children, home, life savings and future income including pensions, with respect to the contribution of the parties throughout the marriage
The principles applied will encourage loyalty and good behaviour in marriage, and discourage bad behaviour at separation
Matrimonial and family law will operate to preserve the assets of the family for the benefit of the family, and will especially protect the assets of the innocent party
Matrimonial and family law will provide justice for the well behaved party; the no-fault principle will not be allowed to be re-established
Maintenance of children will be based on one-half of the costs of basic care; no parent will benefit from such maintenance; maintenance will be fully accountable
Shared parenting will be the norm
No mother will be allowed to take children a distance or overseas
There shall never be a burden of proof on a capable parent that he shall have full control over his children, and never a burden of proof on him that he is beneficial to his children

Vested interests

Those with vested interests will be explicitly excluded from the policy and law making processes, especially lawyers and feminists

Judicial roles

No judge shall have more control over a child than any reasonably capable parent
No judge shall have more control over assets than any reasonably capable parent
No judge shall have discretion over the rights and responsibilities of the parties as endowed by marriage and parenthood
All judges will be required to adhere to the written laws
Judges will have responsibility for protection of the interests of innocent parties
Judges will be accountable to the People for their decisions and behaviour.

4. Postscript

Major influences

In order to illustrate the influence held by some individuals over law-making and policy, we provide two recent reports, and comment on them.

The forewords of the consultation paper Promoting inter-agency working in the family justice system have been written by a senior judge, LJ Thorpe, and a Parliamentary Secretary, Rosie Winterton.

Thorpe

A recent judgement by Thorpe was reported in the Daily Telegraph :

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/19/ncust19.xml&sSheet=/news/2002/04/19/ixnewstop.html>

The Telegraph

19 April 2002

Custody ruling deals a blow to house husbands

By Matt Born

The principle that children should be raised by their mothers won the overt backing of the Court of Appeal yesterday after it rejected a house husband's attempt to win custody of his two children.

The father, who had raised the children in their �1 million home while his wife enjoyed a successful career on a salary of �300,000, argued that he was the victim of sex discrimination.

But the court refused him leave to appeal against a High Court decision which granted custody to his estranged wife.

Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice Buxton, said that despite the "unusual" role reversals in this case, they could not ignore the "realities" of the "very different" traditional functions of men and women.

The father, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had wanted the children to live with him in London while his wife, the family breadwinner, continued to maintain them.

He also opposed her plans to give up her career and move hundreds of miles away with the children, who are both aged under six. Richard Tott, the father's barrister, asked the court to imagine the situation in reverse.

He said that if a male breadwinner proposed giving up his job, taking his children out of private education, moving far from London, and replacing the mother as the primary carer, "his application would be looked at with extreme scepticism".

But in his ruling, Lord Justice Thorpe said that this submission seemed "to ignore the realities involving the different roles and functions of men and women".

The judges heard that after the couple split up last year in "fraught circumstances" each had applied for custody.

The husband moved out of the family home, while the mother cared for the children briefly. However, they soon reached an agreement to share time with the children. The husband moved to a nearby rented house, paid for by the mother.

But the mother now wanted to give up work in order to spend more time with her children.

His belief that her desire was genuine was the decisive factor in rejecting the father's claim, Lord Justice Thorpe said. He said it was "not uncommon" nowadays for those who have "sacrificed the opportunity to provide full-time care for their children in favour of a highly competitive profession" to think again about their priorities.

The judge added: "[They] question the purpose of all that striving and whether they should re-evaluate their lives before the children have grown too old to benefit."

Our comment : it is entirely up to a couple to decide how they organise their domestic activities, and no business of others, particularly judges. To bring the domestic arrangements agreed between a married couple into a court case is entirely wrong. To base a decision on it is obscene. However, Thorpe appears to do this without hesitation. We consider that Thorpe has no authority from Parliament to behave in this manner, and of course no mandate from the people via the democratic system either.

Winterton

Recent action by Winterton was reported in the Independent :

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=275416

Violent parents will lose access

By Jo Dillon, Political Correspondent

17 March 2002

Domestic violence will for the first time be taken into account when court orders are made granting parents the right to see their children.

A Government amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill, to be debated on Wednesday, means that children who have suffered or could suffer the trauma of witnessing violence at home will be protected from potential abusers.

The breakthrough, which will delight campaigners against domestic violence, comes after it emerged that 15 children were killed in recent years by violent parents with a history of either child abuse or violent behaviour at home.

In a separate move these cases and others like them will now be investigated in a series of inquiries aimed at stopping parental contact orders being used to abuse or in the worst cases murder children.

Lord Chancellor's Department minister Rosie Winterton said: "Protecting children and their parents from violence and abuse is a key priority for the Government. We know that children can be harmed not only by abuse or neglect aimed directly at them but also be witnessing the ill-treatment of others, especially people they love.

"These amendments will ensure the courts take into account any harm a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, including harm caused by witnessing violence, when making an order."

The Government is to provide �900,000 over the next three years to encourage supervised contact for young people at risk. There are also plans to work with voluntary groups to improve the facilities at contact centres, which provide a neutral venue for children and the parent they don't live with to meet.

But campaigners are concerned that as well as abusing or beating their children, violent parents use contact orders to track down fleeing partners. They want loopholes in the law closed up so this can be prevented.

Margaret Moran, Labour MP for Luton South and chair of the all-party group on domestic violence, is determined such cases are brought to the attention of the courts and the Government. She was "delighted" that ministers have agreed to take domestic violence into account in making contact orders.

She said: "In every other field of child protection we have full inquiries so we can learn the lessons of what has gone on. But in cases like this, where we have domestic violence and the courts have ordered contact with the fleeing partner and children that has not been the case. So this is a really major step forward."

Our comment : the principle that a father should lose contact with his children because of a dispute with another person is quite perverse. It would not be a principle applied in e.g. a case of robbery with violence, and we know of no reasons why such an evil principle should be extended into the matrimonial and family area. The fact that such an act also damages innocent parties i.e. the children by cutting them off from a parent, is a second independent major reason to reject the principle.

We believe there is feminist influence here, as they recognise that using this argument is just another way to attack men and limit men’s rights in the family.

It is questionable whether those involved in the present consultation exercise, i.e. who authored the proposals, are independent of the views of Thorpe and Winterton.

References

The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence, 2^nd Edition, The Cheltenham Group, February 1998, ISBN 1 900080 03 6.
The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, The Cheltenham Group, 11 June 1998.
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.
Restoring Control over matrimonial and family law : ensuring that the people and Parliament have control over law making and policy, The Cheltenham Group, March 2002.

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, 4], select ‘publications’ then ‘the bookshelf’
for reference [3] select ‘campaigns’ then ‘human rights for men’.

Copies of this response are available from The Cheltenham Group :

Price �5.00, inclusive of postage & packing

This response is published on the World Wide Web at :

http://www.c-g.org.uk/camp/rfjs.htm

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

For further information you may contact :

The Cheltenham Group

via website www.c-g.org.uk