Category Archives: Fathers

Family courts’ inroads into questions of criminal domestic violence

Originally published on Fathercare.org:

We find that excluded fathers get muddled over various aspects of the family courts. I have a new point to make here.

More hangs on the issue of whether a criminal offence has been committed when it comes to allegations of domestic violence than in all other cases of criminal allegations, because in these other cases, the future of children is not directly involved. It follows that it is more important, not less, for the correct verdict to be made.

The English system is based on jury trial in open court by the defendant’s peers. It follows that anyone who colludes in supporting the family courts’ inroads into questions of criminal domestic violence would not be able to explain why they supported the jury trial in any criminal case. They have to agree that they oppose jury trials in all cases. If, however, they are in favour of jury trials, they surely must demand that a jury be involved in open court before recourse is made to a Child Contact Centre.

Ivor Catt 20feb03
Ivor Catt Bar

Advertisements

Child Contact Centres – On mushrooming bureaucracies around divorce

Originally published on Fathercare.org:

This muddled writing about Child Contact Centres points to underlying misunderstanding.

I divorced my wife. When I took this action, I did not introduce third parties between me and my children. It is most important for excluded fathers to grasp this point. The State and its lackeys- lawyers and so on – have a right to intervene in the matter of my divorcing my wife. Like marriage, divorce is a public matter in which the state has an interest, because it may result in spouse or children becoming a burden on the state.

However, intervention by the state between me and my children was another matter. When a judge suggested that I go to a “Contact Centre” and my children do the same, he was acting totally outside his proper powers, which were to do with the initial contract of marriage and the current breaching of that contract.

The state’s interest in the marriage contract arises because children may result from that union, leading to parent or child becoming a burden on the state.

[It has never been alleged that the State is better at parenting than is a parent, so the State does not intervene between parent and child.]

Similarly, during divorce, the state has a right to have concern about provision for the children and for a parent of the marriage. However, putting parent and child into a special location with supervision has nothing to do with the state’s interests. In no way does a parent provide for a child by confronting it under supervision.

[Confronting a child under supervision apes providing for a child in the same was as a film about the war apes the war. It is not the same thing.]

This theatrical game has been added on without any legal justification by various bureaucracies intent on exploiting the situation to make money.

Baskerville (see my website) investigates the enormous financial gain from the kind of activity which is mushrooming around divorce. It is most important that excluded fathers be not tricked into supporting such attacks on parent and child by money-hungry bureaucracies and vicious radfems.

Ivor Catt 20feb03
Ivor Catt Bar

A child has no right of access to its parent

More than eight years ago, I pointed out that nowhere in national or international law or in any Declaration on Human Rights is a child’s right of access to its parent enshrined. This has met with total indifference on all sides.

More and more evidence of disastrous outcome for the child following parentectomy leaks out through a highly censoring media. I wonder at this indifference by all parties to the root problem. By default, that is what UN, the European Court of Human Rights, our own laws and practice, and so on through the whole many layered ranges of ‘protections’ for the English child, validate. If Saudi Arabia routinely cut off her children from every divorced wife, they would remain fully able to endorse all UN (and European and British) laws and declarations.

When we want to enable or stop anything else, we discuss legislating on the matter, or adding it to a UN Declaration. In the one case of parentectomy, we become increasingly concerned about its effects, but are totally indifferent to its root cause.

Anyone who is active ‘on my side’; that is, who wants every child to have the right of access to its parent, but is indifferent to my discovery, is actually against me and against possibly the most fundamental right of every child. You cannot do good with your brain switched off; you only get in the way.

Ivor Catt 12feb99
Ivor Catt Bar

I see no sign of interest in this matter.

Ivor Catt 6feb00
Ivor Catt Bar

I see a diminishing interest in this issue, which has been widely canvassed by me for some years now. There is absolutely no evidence that those who express concern about the Family, for instance FYC, are interested. This leads me to assert that a divorcing father would rather lose his home, his children, all his assets and his future income rather than think. Put more succinctly, a man would rather die than think.

Ivor Catt 3jun07
Ivor Catt Bar

The Two Cultures – Fathers being stigmatised by the family court system as threats to their children

The Two Cultures.

An important synthesis arose from discussion with E on 23dec98.

We begin with the all-important decision as to whether the nest-building urge inheres in the nature of men, or else, as Amneus tends to assert, it is culturally constructed. In his book The Garbage Generation, pub. Primrose 1990, he argues that the weak link in the traditional family is to the father, and that it has to be culturally maintained. For Amneus, matriarchy, where the man has no role in the family, is pre-civilization. The key feature of civilization is that the man is locked into the family. This unleashes the great engine of wealth creation. The married man’s income is 70% more than that of the single man, the single woman and the married woman, all of whom earn the same amount. It is the inculcation of the massive wealth creation of the married father that causes economic takeoff into the much higher standard of living that distinguishes civilization.

Those who have experience of our secret family courts know that a new culture is being nurtured at great expense to the taxpayer. Under this culture, the greatest threat to a child is its own father, who wants access to it in order to sexually molest it and to batter it. A man who is drawn into our family courts experiences deep culture shock. The careful inculcation of the idea that his future lies in marrying, working and providing for and caring for his children is contradicted by a new cultural norm. This new norm asserts that married men usually batter their wives and sexually molest their children.

The original inculcation is however relied on by the courts, which assure themselves that whatever barriers they put between father and child, he will struggle to surmount them in order to fulfil his learned duty under the earlier culture. This contradictory situation survives because of the secrecy of the courts and the censorship of their activities. However, a slow fuse has been lit. The message is leaking out, that our culture now regards a father as a threat to his children, and that his only positive aspect is his cheque book. This is why the marriage rate has collapsed, the remarriage rate has collapsed, and the birthrate has collapsed.

My loyalty is to the present crop of young men, who must be warned about the danger they are in.

Ivor Catt 31jan99
Ivor Catt Bar