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
I see no sign of interest in this matter.
Ivor Catt 6feb00
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 on family justice 