Restoring Control

over matrimonial and family law


ensuring that the people and Parliament

have control over law making and policy


Edition 2.2


The Cheltenham Group, September 2004


Contact information

from :

The Cheltenham Group


Director : Barry Worrall BSc MSc MBCS CEng






History of matrimonial and family law


Principles currently applied


Outcomes in typical cases


Problems caused


Formulation of law and policy, and those responsible


Lack of control mechanisms, lack of public involvement


To restore control





The recent history of matrimonial and family law shows that the most significant changes, which affect the outcomes of cases, have been introduced, not by Parliament, but by case law of the senior judges, and which go against the equitable principles laid down by Parliament in the written laws.

The principles currently applied are not those that Parliament, or the public have accepted. They include ‘no-fault divorce’ and the ‘children’s interests paramount’ principles, compounded with policies of mother-priority in custody, and enforced payment of child maintenance which is not based on need and is entirely unaccountable. The former principle is responsible for deep-seated injustices against innocent men, and the latter, while appearing to be reasonable, in reality, results in capable fathers losing control of their children’s upbringing at the discretion of a judge. The state effectively supports these processes through the priority provision of legal aid to women.

Outcomes in typical cases illustrate deep-seated injustices. They show massive inequalities in outcomes so far as children, life savings, home, and future income are concerned

Problems caused are across a spectrum of issues : the separation of innocent men from their children, serious financial burdens, the prohibitive costs of ongoing legal action, the effect of deep-seated injustices, and the lack of support for marriage and for well-behaved individuals in marriage. Human rights violations against innocent men are clearly taking place in about 100,000 cases each year. Current social conditions, with about 30% of children largely without the protection of their natural fathers, and experiencing their mothers having multiple partners, are commonplace.

Current practices in the formulation of law and policy, and those responsible, are reasonably described as degenerate, and under the control of un-elected and un-representative select groups. Judges are deeply involved in the law-making process, as well as acting as the law-enforcers, and are therefore in a dictatorial position. Parliament and the public are not represented in the debates, which are dominated by lawyers, social scientists, and those with specific agendas especially feminists.

The lack of control mechanisms, lack of public involvement has been adequately demonstrated within many recent initiatives. Submissions to supposedly responsible authorities, and applications under human rights laws, are being deliberately obstructed, and have provided no remedies.

To restore control, we recommend that the people’s representatives in Parliament assert their authority over those responsible for the present situation. A constitutional issue has arisen, about who controls the law. Parliamentary laws are required to be introduced that will :

  • allow individuals to know their rights and responsibilities before commitment;
  • prohibit judges’ discretion to vary those rights, with written law that anyone may understand;
  • remove the degenerate principles currently applied, and base law on essential ethical principles, that provide support for marriage, for the individual’s rights, and for justice;
  • ensure that the people and court users, and those without agendas, will control law and policy;
  • provide feedback from court users, and publish findings and remedies;
  • ensure that the victims of the present corruption and degeneracy are compensated, and that those responsible will be brought to justice;
  • establish bodies, e.g. sub-committees of a Family Justice Council, with terms or reference to implement these remedies.




Introducing this report

The focus of this report is the decline of matrimonial and family law into a state of degeneracy, and how it may be restored to serve the people of the UK.

To appreciate the need for, and what will be required to ensure, full restoration, it is necessary to understand several aspects. These include :

  1. the historical background in law, since 1948 when the degeneracy started

  2. major principles currently applied

  3. outcomes for the parties in typical cases

  4. the problems caused for the parties and for society

  5. formulation of law and policy, and those who have been responsible

  6. the lack of effective control mechanisms, including public and Parliamentary involvement.

An understanding of these issues allows us to determine :

  1. what is required to be done for restoration of control by the public and Parliament, including the introduction of essential ethical principles on which law and policy is based.

Our aim is to provide an overview of this subject, while keeping this report as brief as possible. We do this by presenting our evidence and more detailed argument in other referenced reports, which are available in hardcopy form and on the Internet.

This report is itself available on the Internet at In this form the referenced reports, also on the Internet, may be navigated to on only the click of the computer mouse.

Previous research by the Cheltenham Group

The Cheltenham Group has researched current policies and practices, and published the 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. /publics/tenc/report.htm

Reference [1]

The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies



The policy of court welfare officers, which is intended to remove men’s rights by subversion of the law, attempts at a remedy, and lack of remedy from the competent authorities. /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. /camp/hr/iccpra23&7.htm

Reference [3]

If you intend to study the present report, you should also read these references. Clicking on the above hyperlinks will launch a new window which shows only the referenced paper. Doing this will make each reference available while you read the present report.

A more convenient way to access these reports on the Internet is to enter at Then select as follows :

Note on terminology

It is recognised that it is almost always women who obtain custody of children, without good reason. In this report therefore the term ‘mother’ is used for the party who has custody and the term ‘father’ for the parent who is separated from his child(ren). We use the term ‘custody’, even though the written law prefers the term ‘residence’, because mothers usually effectively take the child(ren) into custody at separation.


1. History of matrimonial and family law

1.1 Major changes to matrimonial law






Most recent judicial definition of marriage in the UK. Marriage is defined as "a voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" (per Lord Penzance in Hyde v. Hyde (1868) Law Reports 1 Probate and Divorce 130, 133).


Case of Allen in Court of Appeal. Mr Allen’s wife had deserted him and committed adultery, but was nevertheless given custody of the children.

Matrimonial offence no longer relevant to determining custody of children. The principles of Parliament with respect to relevance of behaviour in determination of children’s issues have now been overturned.

This is the beginning of the introduction of the ‘no-fault’ principle into matrimonial law.

1973 and soon after


Matrimonial Causes Act. Changes are made to the grounds for divorce :

introduction of ‘separation’

‘cruelty’ replaced by ‘unreasonable behaviour’.

Subsequent case law determined that ‘unreasonable behaviour’, originally intended to be based on objective grounds by a court, is redefined as based on subjective grounds, to mean anything that someone making the allegations thought was ‘unreasonable’.

Most divorces are subsequently based on trivial and fabricated ‘unreasonable behaviour’ grounds.



Case of Wachtel in Court of Appeal. This case established that the allocation of family assets would no longer be based on the behaviour of parties i.e. the ‘no-fault’ principle also introduced into asset allocation.

Subsequently solicitors put pressure on those receiving a divorce petition not to defend, on the grounds that it will only cost them more money and serve no purpose in defending their interests.

The principles of Parliament with respect to relevance of behaviour in allocation of assets have now been overturned.



‘Special procedure’ introduced to speed up uncontested divorces. This is the completion of divorce based on the ‘no-fault’ principle. From this point most divorces were uncontested and matrimonial offences largely removed from proceedings determining children and assets.

Women now almost automatically obtain custody of children no matter what their behaviour, and also profit financially from divorce. From this time until the present, about 75% of divorces instituted by women.

Public largely unaware of these changes. Those entering marriage unaware of the principles applied in dissolution. Those already married have had the principles they would expect to be applied at dissolution overturned, but most married people unaware of this, as little if any publicity has been given to these fundamental changes.

Rate of divorce commences to rise, until by the 1990s it is 4 times that in 1973, in 75% of cases instigated by the woman.

Many men face shock and trauma at the degrading treatment they receive at dissolution of their marriage. Men’s and father’s groups now established as a response to this situation.



Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act. This stated that a court was expected to examine behaviour of parties when allocating assets, i.e. a ‘fault-based’ process.

This principle continues to be ignored by the courts.



Children Act. Previous practice of courts built into statute, with ‘welfare checklist’ about children’s welfare. This ignored by court welfare officers, who continue to provide biased reports to the courts, and ignore objectively defined aspects of welfare.

‘Custody and access’ renamed ‘residence and contact’.



Child Support Act. Child maintenance responsibilities based solely on being natural parent. Matrimonial status entirely irrelevant.

Offensive term ‘absent parent’, usually corrupted to ‘absent father’, used within written law, when most fathers after separation and divorce are deliberately excluded by the mother assisted by the courts.

Maintenance is not based on need, so that a wealthy woman will obtain the same level as a poor woman.

There are no mechanisms available within the Act to ensure that money paid for child maintenance is actually spent on the children.



Marriage Act. Allows a marriage ceremony to take place in locations other than Register Office and Church. Trivialises the act of marriage.


Family Law Act. Principle of ‘no-fault’ divorce, already introduced by stealth, built into statute.


NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy published. Introduction of formal written policy, reflecting previous practice, of the professional body of court welfare officers, who produce reports for the court in family law children’s cases on residence and contact, to support only the rights of women, and ignore those of fathers and children.

This policy subverts the law, and the principles established in the ‘welfare checklist’ of the Children Act 1989.

1.2 The rate of change in matrimonial law




1967 - 1996


Total of 36 laws passed which affect matrimonial and family rights.

[1, pages 33-34]

Any individual considering marriage cannot now determine his rights and responsibilities, as they are not contained in any concise and readily assimilated form.

The principles applied to a marriage have changed fundamentally over a few years. The most fundamental principles have been changed by case law without Parliamentary debate, and without debate by the public, and without the public even being informed.

Those individuals who are able to determine their rights and responsibilities cannot assume that what they have found will apply for the likely duration of their marriage.

1.3 Changes to social benefits in support of marriage




up to 2000


Social benefits and provisions changed to remove all of the benefits of the married state for men, while leaving some benefits for women on the death of their husband. Social provisions gave greater support for lone parents, most of whom are women, than for a married person [8].

In 1999 the removal of the married person’s tax allowance is announced to be effective from April 2000. This action is the removal of the last remaining financial support for an ongoing marriage. Widow’s benefits continue, but not widower’s, although the UK Government has recently announced, after an application to the European Court of Human Rights, to introduce widower’s benefits equal to widow’s.

From year 2000 social benefits for an ongoing marriage will support only those with children, without distinguishing the married state.

1.4 An overview of the development of matrimonial and family law

This history illustrates a very ad hoc and unstructured development of law. It shows a pragmatic approach, on the ‘let us change this aspect now’ type, without regard for any fundamental ethical principles which could be relied upon. It also shows involvement of those with specific agendas that are not concerned for the family, for the individual’s rights, or for justice.

As an analogy, those who study physics learn of fundamental principles, e.g. that the laws about gravity and mass explain why the moon orbits the earth in a very predictable way. The principles concerning gravity and mass are well established, based on observation and experiment. Physicists can rely on these fundamental principles to further research and predict other aspects of the universe.

Hence matrimonial and family law is not based on any appropriate fundamental ethical principles.

There requires to be established fundamental ethical principles, on which individuals may base their decisions, and to know their rights and responsibilities, and may rely on to protect their interests. This is the only basis on which sound laws may exist, and which will be acceptable to the people.


2. Principles currently applied

2.1 ‘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 :

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.

2.2 ‘Children’s interests paramount’ principle

This principle (since 1991, in Children Act 1989, but practised before that time) 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.

The application of this principle ensures that the rights of capable parents over their own children are assumed by a judge against the wishes of these parents.

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.

2.3 Mother-priority without good reason

During the 1800s, it was usual for fathers to obtain custody. In the early 1900s, custody was determined on an equitable basis, and included the concept of matrimonial fault, so fathers were as likely to obtain custody of children as were mothers. From about 1948, as exemplified in the case of Allen v Allen, CoA, mothers were given priority by judges, no matter what their behaviour.

There are no social studies or other research that supports this policy, in other words, no rational reasons for it. The policy has been introduced by judges and has never appeared in any written law. The people and their representatives in Parliament have never sanctioned such a policy.

2.4 Child maintenance principles

Child maintenance, currently under the Child Support Act 1991, is based on the principle that the child maintenance paid should be in proportion to the parent’s ability i.e. the child should benefit from a parent’s success in income.

However, the maintenance is actually paid, not to the child(ren), but to the parent with care, usually the mother. The result of this is that the mother also benefits, even when she is guilty of a matrimonial wrong and the father is innocent of any wrong.

The level of maintenance does not in any way recognise need, so that a wealthy woman may demand the same level of maintenance as a poor woman. For example, if a man’s ex-wife wins the lottery, or marries a millionaire, the father’s obligations remain unchanged. If he has the children staying with him for significant time, as is often the case, he has no way of claiming maintenance from the wealthy mother in order to provide himself with a similar standard of living while the children are with him.

Further, if the mother remarries or cohabits, she continues to obtain the same level of maintenance, and so profits from divorce by obtaining an unearned income from the ex-husband. Such additional income is not available to ordinary mothers, and so the woman who remains loyal to her husband will be financially worse than the woman who deserts her husband.

The maintenance paid is entirely unaccountable, so the father has no means of knowing or proving if the maintenance he is forced to pay has in fact been spent on his children.

2.5 Legal aid provision

Women involved in separation and divorce apply for legal aid in about 50% more cases than men, and are about 20% more likely to obtain it. They obtain legal aid in about 75% of cases, and approximately twice as often as men. Women are provided with this support even though they later obtain on average about 66% of family assets. Confirmation of these figures is readily available [1, Annex 3].

The legal aid costs are retrieved from available assets after the case. Lawyers therefore gain significantly from family assets which are encouraged to be spent by the provision of legal aid.

Women initiate about 75% of divorces, and have come to expect legal aid provision for the legal processes. They understand, in most cases, that the money spent on lawyers, to divorce their husband, is that earned by their husband, and not by themselves. The husband meanwhile has the humiliation of knowing that the money he earned, i.e. his life savings, is being spent with little restraint, to dispossess him of his children and other assets.

Those who least need assistance, i.e. women, are given highest priority with legal aid, and those who most need assistance and protection, i.e. men, are given lowest priority.

It is clear that the state effectively supports women financially through the legal processes of separation and divorce, and that there are no incentives for the women themselves, or their lawyers, to restrict the spending on the legal process.

2.6 Summary of principles currently applied

All of the several principles currently applied, and listed above, are degenerate for any society, for the reasons described. Each of them is a major problem in its own right. Together they comprise the greatest degeneracy, and cause the greatest violation of men’s rights, that has ever occurred in UK law.

The current system is based on the pragmatics of :

and the degenerate principles of :

The system should be based on essential ethical principles which :


3. Outcomes in typical cases

We refer the reader to the major Cheltenham Group report The Emperor’s New Clothes [1] for a comprehensive treatment of this subject.

Typical outcomes may be described using probabilities and statistics from this report, which are based on government statistics and our survey of 1995, and then use of comparisons.

3.1 Probabilities and statistics for specific outcomes

We give here a selection of statistics from the report. The probabilities are out of 1, e.g. 0.53 means that this applies to 53% of the relevant population. The occurrences are those estimated from the probabilities, based on the assumption, and no better information exists at this time, that these probabilities apply to the whole population. The populations are those of all currently married men, and those divorced in one year.

Outcomes: occurring to a married man

during marriage

Population : all currently married men



Occurrences to

currently married men

be divorced



be divorced by his wife using fabricated grounds



lose custody of his child(ren)



lose custody, and never see child(ren) again



lose his home



lose a significant part of his life savings




Outcomes: occurring to a married man

during divorce

Population : men divorced in 1 year



Occurrences to married men

per year

have no effective defence to a wife’s petition



not receive legal aid



have false allegations made against him



be the victim of malpractices in his legal case




Outcomes: occurring to a married man

after divorce

Population : men divorced in 1 year



Occurrences to divorced men

per year

suffer obstruction to contact with his children



suffers stress



will not remarry



have attitudes to women in general



have attitudes to the law




Item : of assets and legal costs

at marriage and divorce

Value : given in s


per case

Total per year

transferred to women at marriage



transferred to women at divorce



paid to lawyers at divorce (men only data)




Item : of maintenance

after divorce

Value : given in s


per case

per year


per case

(made over 10 years)

%age of

cases to

which this


Total for cases

in 1 year

(made over

10 years)

maintenance for children





maintenance for (ex-) wives





3.2 Comparisons of outcomes

It is possible to estimate the probability that a married parent will raise his or her own children, in a normal family setting, to adulthood. We have 47% of parents who raise their children within the usual two-parent family. For the other 53% who divorce, we know from the survey statistics that about 86% of mothers and only 9% of fathers will continue to have custody of all children. Taking 86% and 9% of the 53% who divorce, we obtain data about those divorced couples, that 46% of women and 5% of men retain custody. Adding these figures to 47% we obtain the figures that 93% of mothers and 52% of fathers will be primary carers responsible for raising their own children to adulthood. The probability that a married mother will remain a primary carer of her own children is therefore 0.93, but for a father the figure is 0.52.

Expressed in simple lay terms, if a man takes the step of marrying and has children there is :

If a woman takes the step of marrying and has children there is :

If a wife tires of a husband, she may :

However if a husband tires of his wife, he may :

It is worth considering the situation of cohabiting couples with children. If a woman tires of a cohabiting man, she may :

However if a man tires of a cohabiting woman, he may :


4. Problems caused

4.1 Major issues

4.1.1 Children’s issues

Men who are perfectly capable parents are being cut off from involvement in their children’s lives to a lesser or greater extent, or completely. Men are regularly required to plead in court to be allowed contact and involvement in their children’s upbringing. Instead of there being a burden of proof on someone, that the man should not have involvement with his children, the men themselves have a burden of proof that they should have involvement. There is a very deep-seated humiliation and injustice for men in this. The judges will not bring sanctions of any sort against the woman who does not co-operate in sharing parenting.

Removing children from their home, family and friends, and school, or a distance or overseas, are actions which are not criminal acts, despite the great damage to children and fathers. These acts are not even discouraged.

The home including the natural father is a safer environment for children than that without a father, and new partners are a serious risk to children. The long-term effect of a generation of children growing up in this condition is without precedent.

4.1.2 Money issues

The confiscation and re-distribution of family assets on the communist principle of ‘need’ causes very deep-seated injustices to men.

Also, the requirement to make over monies in future income, without consideration of the actual cost of child maintenance, or of need, exacerbates this seriously. A poor man is still required to send a wealthy woman a specified proportion of his income. All women who remarry are effectively in profit after abandoning a husband, as they also have income from that previous husband, an income not available to loyal wives.

Further, the lack of any accountability of monies forced to be made over for maintenance, is extremely vexatious for those forced to provide such maintenance. Mothers usually have complete control of all monies provided for children, including the maintenance from the father, even when men share the parenting role.

The cost of on-going legal actions is usually prohibitive for ordinary men. Many witness their own earnings and life savings being used to dispossess them of their children and other assets, while they are helpless to prevent this.

4.1.3 Injustices of a deep-seated nature

These issues concern the fundamental components of a man’s life – his children, home, life savings, pension and future income. Loss of control, for no good reason, over these issues causes immense stress, anxiety and justifiable anger and outrage in men of good character.

4.1.4 Lack of protection to innocent men

The judges are in dereliction of their duty to protect innocent men. The principle of protection should be contained within the written law, which judges should be required to respect, so that judges may not avoid the issue.

4.1.5 Marriage and separation – consideration of the whole process

Most policy and law making decisions, and judicial judgements, involve consideration of only the process of separation and divorce, without consideration of the whole process of marriage. The contributions made to the family during the marriage are usually ignored during the legal processes of separation and divorce.

4.1.6 Support for marriage

Allowing one party, the woman, excessive rights over the other party’s children and assets, is clearly going to undermine the equitable rights which should be provided by marriage.

A situation in which one party, the woman, may dispose of a husband, but still retain all the other benefits of the marriage provided by the husband, is wrong. The fact that women effectively profit from the disposal of a husband, because of the additional unearned income of child maintenance, can only be an encouragement to divorce for the woman, while it is not for the man.

We see an unprecedented social pattern, with about 30% of children being brought up without the protection of their natural fathers, whose role is primarily to provide money, and the experience which many of these children have, of experiencing their mother with many partners in an unstable environment.

4.1.7 The burden on ordinary families

In 2000 about 26% of all children were being raised in a lone-mother ‘family’ [The Times, Friday September 27, 2002 : Single parents head a quarter of all families, by Richard Ford, Home Correspondent]. Many of these are on benefits and are given preferential treatment in tax and benefit terms [The Sunday Times, Sunday September 29, 2002, Part-time staff earn more than full employees, by Robert Winnett, Consumer Affairs Correspondent].

Ordinary families have about 1.64 children on average, but to make the sums more straighforward let's say 1.5, i.e. 2 parents have 1.5 children to support, or 4 parents have 3 children to support. We assume each lone-mother ‘family’ consist of 1 mother and 1 child.

A simple analysis of figures shows, adhering to the 1 in 4 ratio of lone-mother children, that each lone-mother ‘family’ of 1 mother + 1 child, is being supported by 4 parents + 3 children in an ordinary family. Hence 4 ordinary parents are supporting the 3 children of their own, plus 1 mother and 1 child in a lone-mother ‘family’. That is, they are supporting 2 more people beyond their own 3 children, which is a burden of 66% extra costs. If we assume each lone-mother ‘family’ consists of 1 mother + 2 children, the figures change slightly, and the extra burden is 50%.

In simple terms, each normal family must support about 50-66% more people as a result of the prevalence of lone-mother ‘families’.

4.2 Minor issues

While this report is primarily concerned with matrimonial and family law, other policies and laws are relevant to the situation :

Suppression of the facts continues :

4.3 Human rights laws

The lack of rights currently provided by UK law, with the removal of children, home, life savings and enforced maintenance from fathers’ income, from men who have done no substantive wrong, must be violations of human rights codes. There is no balance of rights and responsibilities with those of women, which may mitigate the violations.

Of particular note is the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) : article 8 (respect for family life), article 1 of protocol 1 (enjoyment of possessions), article 5 of protocol 7 (equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses).

Most fundamental is article 12 (right to marry). This may at first appear to be irrelevant, as no marriages are prohibited in the UK. But if we consider that there is now no substantive difference in being married, so that the state of marriage carries no rights in law, we understand that the married state no longer exists in the UK except in name only.

The Cheltenham Group submission to the UN Human Rights Commission of 1999 [3], contains the analysis which makes this clear. While the submission refers to UN human rights code, it equally illustrates a violation of ECHR article 12 (right to marry).

4.4 Views on the present situation

This was reported by Reuters press agency in March 2002 :


VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope John Paul urged magistrates and lawyers Monday to avoid working on divorce cases, which he described as "spreading like the plague."

The Pope, spiritual leader of about one billion Catholics around the world, sent his warning to the legal profession during an annual meeting with Vatican magistrates. "Marriage is indissoluble ... it doesn't make any sense to talk about the 'imposition' of human law, because it should reflect and protect natural and divine law," the Pope said. "(Divorce) ... has devastating consequences that spread in society like the plague." As a result, judges and lawyers should refuse to use their professional skills with the goal of ending marriages, he said. "Lawyers, who work freely, should always decline to use their professions for an end that is contrary to justice, like divorce," the 81-year-old Pope said. While magistrates may find it more difficult to avoid being assigned marriage cases, the Pope said they must strive to prevent divorce. "Those working in civil law cases should avoid being personally involved in what could be understood as cooperating in divorce...they should look for effective measures to favor marriage, above all mediating conciliation," he said.

The Catholic Church is vehemently opposed to divorce and homosexual unions which it says threaten the "natural institution" of the family.

4.5 Public knowledge

The press and media have never reported the general situation, or the typical cases we describe in this and our referenced reports; the public are therefore still largely unaware of what is going on.

This is probably the most significant problem of all those we describe, as this allows both :


5. Formulation of law and policy, and those responsible

5.1 Formulation of law and policy

The real changes to matrimonial and family law, since 1948, have not been determined by the public through their elected representatives in Parliament – their MPs, but by the senior judges.

Ongoing policy development has been made, again not by public demand, but by a small group of individuals appointed by bodies, such as the Lord Chancellor’s Department, and their committees. Those appointed invariably belong to two groups : lawyers and social scientists. While there is usually some opportunity for public input, it is mainly those with social agendas who contribute to the debate, and the public at large are not involved or even informed of the decisions which significantly affect their lives.

This subject is extensive, and we provide the most significant case law decisions, and some recent examples of policy making to illustrate typical approaches to policy making.

5.2 Those responsible for law - the most significant case law decisions

5.2.1 Wrottesley and Evershed L.JJ

In the case of Allen v. Allen in 1948, these judges had decided that her adultery was not a reason to deny a woman custody of the children. Mr Allen had returned from World War 2 after being a prisoner of war, to find his wife had deserted him and was living with another man, together with her daughter. The father had obtained custody in the lower court from a judge Wallington J. The mother had appealed this in the Court of Appeal and Wrottesley and Evershed overturned Wallington's just decision.

Here is an extract from the All England Law Reports [1948] 1 AER 413 CA, in which the judges at least acknowledge that "the father has been gravely wronged" but nevertheless award custody to the mother, therefore adding to the injustice, and encouraging other mothers to do the same :

wrottesley.gif (18169 bytes)

Note that the judges even accept that the father was "gravely wronged", but chose not to remedy this issue.

5.2.2 Mr Justice Ormrod

Ormrod, in the case of Wachtel v. Wachtel in the Family Division in 1973, held that there should be a 'no-fault' principle applied to assets distribution.

Here is an extract from the All England Law Reports [1973] 1 AER 113 FD which illustrates the thinking :

ormrod.gif (35943 bytes)

5.2.3 Lord Denning MR

After the case of Wachtel v. Wachtel in the Family Division in 1973, Mr Wachtel appealed his case in the Court of Appeal. The case was then heard by Lord Denning MR (then Master of the Rolls), sitting with Phillimore & Roskill LJJ, who are therefore also implicated.

These senior judges did not overturn Ormrod's judgement, and so this important case precedent upheld the decision that 'no-fault' divorce should remain in financial matters. By this point the 'no-fault' principle was being applied to both children's issues and financial issues in divorce, so completing the corruption.

The most glaring corruption is that Denning says "In most cases both parties are to blame-or, as we would prefer to say-both parties have contributed to the breakdown". This blatant and obvious lie by Denning has determined most of his ‘logic’. The experiences reported to us by many men, indicate that it is just not true that "in most cases both parties are to blame". But even if this were true, what has that got to do with the case of the man obviously wronged by an adulterous or deserting wife ? Denning has ensured that such innocent men are stripped of both children and money.

Here is an extract from the All England Law Reports [1973] 1 AER 829 CA which illustrates the corrupt ‘logic’ :

denning01.gif (27882 bytes)

denning02.gif (47953 bytes)

5.2.4 Ward and Buxton LJ, and the Human Rights Act 1998

The judgement of Ward and Buxton LJ, Court of Appeal, 29 February 2000 (report available at, illustrates the intellectual capabilities of senior judges.

The mother wished to move with the child, of which she had custody, from the UK to New York, on the pretext that she wished to obtain work in New York. The father did not want his child moved as obviously he could have either extremely limited, or most likely, no further contact, and appealed a county court decision. Her case was treated as a case under 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 she should be allowed to take the child to New York, even though he would perhaps never see his child again.

To analyse this decision, we compare the human rights respected for each party, by these judges : 

Put simply, her human rights were upheld on two counts, and his were violated on one count. This decision is so absurdly unbalanced, that we believe these judges can only be described as being mentally deranged.

5.3 Those responsible for policy – recent examples

5.3.1 The ‘NAPO Anti-sexism policy’ of 1996

This policy, The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy, of the trade union / professional body of court welfare officers, who were the predecessors of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) officers, is clearly intended to remove men’s rights by subversion of the law. The Cheltenham Group made attempts at a remedy with submissions to the relevant authorities during 1998. There was a complete lack of remedy from the competent authorities, as described in our publication The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies, 1998 [2].

Here is the cover, and the relevant section of the policy (from page 11) :

napo01.gif (15472 bytes)

napo02.gif (11642 bytes)

During 2001, the police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) were asked to investigate the promotion of this policy as the criminal act ‘to pervert the course of justice’. The police did refer the matter to the CPS, who refused to bring a prosecution of those involved.

During 2002, the Chairman of CAFCASS was approached to explain how The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy would be addressed by CAFCASS. There was no answer to indicate that anything would be done, so CAFCASS officers would be allowed to continue to operate the policy.

5.3.2 The ‘Making Contact Work’ consultation of 2001

This is only one recent example of policy making. We describe important aspects of it, to illustrate typical policy-making processes. The consultation exercise included a consultation paper of 80 pages, and a report to the Lord Chancellor of 145 pages. As the report says on page 7 "We are advising on the question of contact in the framework of the way in which the current legislation has been interpreted by the courts over the past 10 years", thus severely limiting the possible remedies which could be recommended. We are not told why this restriction was imposed, and why, or who by. We give important extracts only to illustrate the views of those involved. Principles applied

Central to the proposals in the consultation paper are principles of two psychiatrists, Drs Sturge and Glaser. 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.

We provide a copy of the section (from pages 7 and 8) of the ‘Making Contact Work’ consultation paper (undated but covering letter dated March 2001) presenting the principles of Drs Sturge and Glaser :

mcw01.gif (11050 bytes)

mcw02.gif (40419 bytes)

The report to the Lord Chancellor (undated but distributed in February 2002) listed 8 men’s interest groups, but 20 women’s interest groups. It wholly accepted the degenerate principles of Drs Sturge and Glaser (from page 124) :

mcw03.gif (11297 bytes) Judges’ views

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

The judges are therefore either :

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 of the ‘Making Contact Work’ consultation paper, pages 31-33) 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 :

Further, Ormrod does not mention :

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.

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].

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. Issues not currently addressed by the proposals

None of the following issues, vital to the topic of ‘Making Contact Work’, were addressed in the consultation exercise : 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. 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. 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 as an established behaviour pattern.

Information on PAS is readily available e.g. at the National Parental Alienation Foundation’s website Imbalance between women’s and men’s rights groups in the consultation

Many more responses from feminist groups about the proposals, emphasising ‘children’s interests as paramount’ were made as :

The Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC) did not appear to recognise this imbalance in its report. Other countries’ practices

The proposals included ‘other countries’ practices considered, but 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 have been 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 (CASC) 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.

5.3.4 Involvement of judges and lawyers in policy and law making

It is essential to understand how overwhelming the involvement of senior judges and lawyers is in the making of policy and law, and how this is happening on an international scale across the Western World.

We simply provide a list of judges etc attending a conference, edited directly from the Congress Program :




Bath, England, 20 - 22 September 2001


The Right Honourable Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss DBE, President of the Family Division of the High Court

The Honourable Chief Justice Alastair Nicholson AO RFD, Family Court of Australia

Justice Lucien A. Beaulieu, President, International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates, Canada

David McIntosh, President, Law Society of England and Wales

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Thorpe, Court of Appeal (England)

The Honourable Mr Justice Johnson, Family Division, Royal Courts of Justice (England)

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles, Family Division (England)

Professor William Duncan, Deputy Secretary-General, Hague Conference on Private International Law (Ireland)

Adair Dyer, Attorney, and former First Secretary of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (USA)

The Honourable Justice Joseph Kay, Judge of the Appeal Division of the Family Court of Australia (Australia)

Malcolm Broun QC, Barrister (Australia)

The Honourable Justice R James Williams, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, Family Division (Canada)

The Honourable Justice Linda Dessau (Australia)

The Honourable Mr Justice Singer, Family Division, Royal Courts of Justice (England)

The Honourable Mr Justice Wall, Family Division, Royal Courts of Justice (England)

Judge Patrick Mahony, Principal Family Court Judge (New Zealand)

Joan A McPhail QC, Director, Family Branch, Manitoba Dept of Justice (Canada)

The Honourable Mr Justice Holman, Family Division, Royal Courts of Justice (England)

His Excellency Judge Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren, Judge of the International Court of Justice (The Netherlands)

The Honourable Mr Justice Wilson, High Court of Justice, Family Division, (England)

The Honourable Madam Justice Marguerite Trussler, Supreme Court of Alberta, (Canada)

The Right Honourable Lady Justice Brenda Hale DBE, Court of Appeal (England)

The Honourable Lord Bonomy, Court of Session (Scotland)

His Honour Judge Peter Boshier, Family Court of New Zealand (New Zealand)

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Sedley, Court of Appeal (England)

The Honourable Justice Richard Chisholm, Family Court of Australia (Australia)

The Honourable Mr Justice John Vanduzer, Superior Court of Justice, Ontario, Family Court (Canada)

His Honour Judge Karsten QC (England)

The Honourable Justice Rod Burr (Australia)

The Honourable Justice Lucien A Beaulieu, Superior Court of Justice (Canada)

The Honourable Mr Justice Gillen (Northern Ireland)

Her Honour Judge Roddy

- plus other lawyers and representatives of children’s rights organisations – too numerous to mention.


In March 2002 the Lord Chancellor’s Department issued a consultation exercise Promoting inter-agency working in the family justice system, which suggested the establishment of a Family Justice Council with Sub-committees. One of the roles of the Family Justice Council is "providing advice to the Government on changes to legislation, practice and procedure which should improve the workings of the family justice system" i.e. to recommend laws. It was proposed that the President of the Family Division, then the Right Honourable Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss DBE, should be chairman of the Family Justice Council. No more clearer indication needs to be given of the involvement of senior judges in the law-making process.

5.3.5 Previous policy positions of individuals and groups with their own agendas

One outstanding example is taken from the Gay Liberation Front Manifesto of 1979 [quoted in The Fight for the Family : the adults behind children’s rights, Lynette Burrows, Family Education Trust, ISBN 0 906229 14 6] :

"We, along with the women’s movement, must fight for something more than reform. We must aim at the abolition of the family so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there. The oppression of gay people starts in the most basic unit of society, the family, consisting of the man in charge, a slave as his wife, and their children on whom they force themselves as the ideal models … The end of the sexist culture and of the family will benefit all women and gay people."

Another outstanding example of one such individual with a specific agenda is Brenda Hoggett. Previously an academic in law at Manchester University, later a member of the Law Commission, an unaccountable and unelected body which proposes and develops new laws, and more recently appointed a senior judge in the Court of Appeal in the family division, later in the House of Lords, and titled Mrs Justice Hale. In an influential paper published in 1980 [from Ends and Means : the utility of Marriage as a Legal Institution, Brenda Hoggett in Eekalaar and Catz (eds), Marriage and Cohabitation in Contemporary Societies, p.101, Butterworth, 1980] she wrote :

hoggett.gif (17811 bytes)

This is the attitude of a woman who, while in the Law Commission, attempted to build the ‘no-fault’ principle into written law in the Family Law Act 1996, and who has held, and still holds at the time of writing, major influence as a senior judge in the Family Division.

5.4 What is not addressed by current practice

5.4.1 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 :

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, e.g. those in the Lord Chancellor’s Department, including committees such as the Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC), are therefore acting almost entirely without knowledge of what they are doing to society.

5.4.2 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].

This is a staggering achievement. To give some appreciation of just how staggering, consider the following analogy :


The mortgage system - an analogy


We have in the UK the provision of mortgages for people to buy homes, and laws to regulate this. Let's call this the ‘mortgage system’. Mortgages are contracts between a bank or building society, and individuals or couples, and are regulated by law. There are responsibilities and rights on both sides of the mortgage contract. As we don't know of any organised opposition to the mortgage system, let's assume that most people consider that the system and contracts are fair.


Corrupting the mortgage system


Suppose that a group of people thought that mortgages were ‘oppressive’ or damaging to others, and so did not agree with the principle that individuals should be able to borrow money to buy a home and, for their own greedy and selfish objectives, wished to destroy the mortgage system. How could they destroy the mortgage system ? Well, they could do this by undermining the individual’s rights in the mortgage, e.g. to the point that a bank could completely determine the terms of the contract and change them at will, and the individuals would be helpless to prevent this. To accomplish this, it would be necessary to ensure that the law could provide no protection to the individual, so some corruption to fair law would be needed. The practical effects for the individual would be, for example, that the bank could double the interest rate at a moments notice, require repayment of double the capital, or evict borrowers from their homes without reason, while the innocent individual finds that they could obtain no protection in law.


This would result in individuals losing control of their rights over each and all of these :

  • home

  • life savings

  • and future income and expenditure


by actions of the bank or building society, for which the individual had no defence in law. This would obviously be to say the least, grossly unfair to the individual and unacceptable to the public. For innocent persons to be treated in this way is correctly described as uncivilised, for innocent people to be treated this way in large numbers each year as a holocaust against an entire section of the community i.e. those who borrow money for their homes. Such a course of events would obviously deter people from taking out mortgages and lead to the destruction of the mortgage system.



Consider how such a group of people could achieve such unjust and evil practices to become normal. It would be difficult to imagine the sequence of steps needed to achieve this. Also how the legal system could be sufficiently manipulated, corrupted and to become so degenerate, that such treatment of borrowers became normal practice. Also that there might not be any corrective mechanisms in place for a remedy.


To ensure that such a corrupt mortgage system were to continue, it would be necessary to ensure that :


  • corruption and malpractices existed in the legal system involved in mortgages, both in the law making and law interpretation processes

  • degenerate principles were to be tolerated by senior judges, and while individuals could write to their MPs making complaints and asking for remedy, that Parliament and Government would do nothing

  • the normal correction mechanisms e.g. complaints procedures about those involved, the banks and building societies, and the lawyers and judges, would be ineffective.


A comparison with matrimonial and family law


The corruption in matrimonial and family law is significantly more serious than the corruption we conjecture above in the mortgage system. This is because a woman may discard a husband, without giving any reasons which will be examined by a court, and dispossess the man of not only his :


  • home

  • life savings

  • and future income and expenditure

as in the corrupt mortgage system described above, but also his :

  • children

  • and pension rights.


And this is effected by ensuring that the legal system will give an innocent man no protection.


If we consider the corrupt mortgage system to be uncivilised, how then do we describe the current matrimonial system, which wrecks the lives of about 100,000 innocent men every year ?



What has happened in less than 50 years, has been such corruption to the matrimonial system - a far greater achievement than the conjectured corruption to the mortgage system described above. They have not only removed men's rights in marriage, a most fundamental unit in society, but ensured persecution of men by the law. Men's rights have been eradicated, not only over a man's home, life savings, and future income, these factors directly comparable to the mortgage system, but also over his children and pension rights.

This has been a staggering achievement for the feminists. Just as staggering has been the compliance of successive governments and the legal system with such evil.

And this has been achieved using part of what we refer to as The Big Lie, that women are oppressed by marriage.

5.5 Democratic and constitutional principles

5.5.1 Democratic control

At the time of writing, many individual men and fathers are known to have taken their own cases to their MPs etc. Further, various men’s and fathers’ rights groups, have taken a description of the overall situation to MPs and ministers.

As one example, on 11 June 1998, Cheltenham Group members met with Mr Geoff Hoon, then a minister in the Lord Chancellor’s Department, briefed him of the general situation and on the NAPO Anti-sexism Policy in particular. They presented Mr Hoon with a copy of each of The Emperor’s New Clothes [1] and The NAPO ‘Anti-sexism’ Policy & Lack of Available Remedies [2]. Mr Hoon therefore had no excuse for ignorance of the situation described in these reports. He took no action whatever that we are aware of.

It is clear that there exists no democratic control over the situation through the normal processes of representation of the people by their MPs, and so no Parliamentary control exists over the present situation or over those responsible.

It is reasonable to say that the democratic process has completely broken down.

5.5.2 Constitutional position

The involvement of judges in the law-making process, while they also enforce the law, and have no feedback from court users or the public, is clearly that of a dictatorial regime.

We have not studied the constitutional position or laws that have allowed subversion of the democratic process, but clearly, the constitution is failing the people.


6. Lack of control mechanisms, lack of public involvement

6.1 Lack of control

Those men who have sought remedy have obtained no satisfaction.

The case law of the Court of Appeal (CoA) has provided the authority for the lower courts to act as they do, and so the usual legal advice for men is that the CoA will not provide remedy. The case law of the CoA indicates that this is true.

Complaints to relevant authorities are not heard or acted upon, as exemplified by the submissions by the Cheltenham Group :

Applications to the Court of Human Rights, regarding violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, has brought little remedy so far, including especially :

Perhaps most notable of these is the submission to the UN HRC which questions the nature of what is called ’marriage’ in the UK. This was referred by the UN HRC to the UK government, and we know of no actions subsequently taken by the UK government to remedy the situation.

6.2 Public involvement

There is no meaningful public involvement in policy formation, and lawyers and social scientists dominate the debates, both of these groups having vested interests.

6.3 Principles considered

The changes considered during formulation of law and policy are heavily restricted to issues which superficially consider the issues, as we describe in section 2 ‘Principles currently applied’, and without fundamental ethical and moral concepts being involved.


7. To restore control

7.1 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 :

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.

7.2 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, several changes are required :

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.

7.3 Parliament to re-establish its authority

As all the corruption and degeneracy has been introduced without and above the authority of Parliament, it is essential that Parliament re-establishes its authority over the judiciary, and over policy making bodies.

We essentially have a constitutional issue about control of law and the judges. Democracy and the people’s will, requires to be restored. One issue is the presence of the person responsible for appointing judges, the Lord Chancellor, in the UK government’s Cabinet body.

7.4 Recommendations for remedies

It is recommended that the laws :

It is specifically recommended for Parliament to ensure 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; 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

  4. 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

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

  6. 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

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

  8. legal action should be readily affordable by ordinary decent men, and legal aid prohibited from those driving the divorce process

  9. 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’

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

  11. 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 :

7.5 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

  1. Those committing themselves to marriage and/or parenthood shall know the rights and responsibilities endowed by law before commitment
  2. The terms of matrimonial law accepted by the parties at marriage will be those applied at separation and divorce
  3. Judges shall not have discretion to vary the written law
  4. No one shall profit from a marriage
  5. The state shall not financially support the legal processes of separation and divorce

Matrimonial and family law


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. The principles applied will encourage loyalty and good behaviour in marriage, and discourage bad behaviour at separation
  4. 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
  5. Matrimonial and family law will provide justice for the well behaved party; the no-fault principle will not be allowed to be re-established
  6. 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
  7. Shared parenting will be the norm
  8. No mother will be allowed to take children a distance or overseas
  9. 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

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

Judicial roles

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

7.6 Proposed implementation of these remedies

It is useful to make proposals for implementation of these remedies. The Cheltenham Group has made such proposals in our response to the Lord Chancellor’s Department’s consultation exercise Promoting inter-agency working in the family justice system, March 2002, which suggests the establishment of a Family Justice Council with Sub-committees.

In our response Reformation of the Family Justice System, May 2002, we propose sub-committees with terms of reference as follows :

The composition of these sub-committees should :



The purpose of this report is :

  1. to inform both the people, and especially their representatives in Parliament, of

  2. to provide the people’s representatives in Parliament with an understanding of what is required to implement remedies.

We await Parliament’s remedies to this constitutional issue so deeply affecting the people.



  1. The Emperor’s New Clothes : Divorce Process and Consequence, 2nd 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 Then select as follows :

Copies of this report are available from The Cheltenham Group :

Price 5.00, inclusive of postage & packing

This report is published on the World Wide Web at :

(enter at selecting ‘publications’)


For further information you may contact :

The Cheltenham Group


Director : Barry Worrall BSc MSc MBCS CEng