Father's rights

[Gob]

[Big RR]

BSG--

I admit I'm not familiar with parental rights laws in the UK, but in the US, being in prison - even for beating your children's mother in front of them, or even murdering her, for that matter - is not automatic grounds for termination of parental rights.

Do folks here believe it should be?

Automatic? No, of course not. But I think it would be pretty strong evidence that they should be terminated (and shows that the children would likely be in danger if they are not).

And In the US I don't think a battered spouse would be ordered to maintain contact with her imprisoned spouse (put there for battering her) and write him several letters a year. If his parental rights are not terminated, he would have the right to maintain contact with his children, but he would not have the right to insist that she continue to be in contact with him; I would imagine alternative procedures could be put in place to give him the information he is entitled to without involving her.

As a real life example, I represented the children in a Family Court proceeding where the father battered the spouse and her (not his) older son for which he was out on bail. He still wanted contacted with his children (and they with him), but there were valid concerns that he could not know where she was living and that the kids might tell him; strictly supervised visits were instituted and he was prohibited from any unsupervised contact. Social services provided transportation to and from the visits.

[BoSoxGal]

Sorry, I don't read @w's posts so can't join in the humor (or lack thereof).

I do think this is an interesting policy question. Here in the US, grounds for termination of parental rights vary from state to state - some do allow termination based on a felony conviction of any kind, some only if it is related to assault on the child or other parent, some not at all. Here's a primer, for anybody who is interested: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/groundtermin.pdf

I'm not aware that any state has mandatory termination based on felony conviction - for instance, husband is convicted of felony burglary and sent away for 20 years. If mother doesn't seek TPR, the state is unlikely to do so on her behalf - even if she's obtaining welfare benefits on behalf of the child(ren). Generally the overarching policy interest reflected in the case law has been to maintain parent-child relationships except in the most extreme circumstances.

Another argument that this situation raises is whether women (or men) who are victims of domestic violence at the hands of their partners should be subject to prosecution for failure to protect their children - from witnessing the abuse. Some states have enacted such statutes, and there is a great deal of controversy over this concept in the DV movement, which largely claims this is re-victimizing a victim. However, some folks believe it's a clear failure to protect when an abused spouse/partner refuses to leave the abusive relationship and allows his/her children to be subject to the abusive environment.

Thoughts?

[BoSoxGal]

Big RR, we cross-posted.

I agree that it's extreme to require the abused partner to be the one to facilitate contact between the abuser and the child(ren).



Oh wait, I don't. Happens all the time in the US system, at least in my 20+ years experience working with DV victims. I'm not saying that makes it right, but there are still many, many judges who don't 'get' the dynamics of DV, and would readily order such a contact requirement under the theory that with perpetrator in jail and victim on the outside, there is no real risk of harm in requiring her to send letters updating him on the children's progress in life, school, church, etc.

I wish that weren't the case, but anybody working actively in the DV movement today would tell you that education of the judiciary with regard to DV dynamics is still a huge obstacle. Many of the national organizations offer free training to judges - airfare, lodging, per diem, etc. to attend their conferences - and many judges still refuse to be involved. I worked with one such judge here in Montana, who only grants emergency protective orders 20% of the time they are applied for by petitioners.

Sadly, this issue is still very much a hot button one in the rest of America. I imagine the situation is better in more enlightened pockets of our nation, as with most things.

[Lord Jim]

I would certainly make termination of parental rights in the case of one parent convicted of murdering another automatic, (maybe attempted murder as well); for anything else I think you'd have to take it on a case-by-case basis. But I would also try to fast track the process for the non-incarcerated spouse to make their case.

[Big RR]

Well BSG, you live and learn; I'd never heard of such requirements, but it doesn't shock me that some judges order them. It is pretty outrageous to make such an order IMHO; I'd be interested to see how broadly such orders are given.

ETA: BTW, if there is a restraining/no contact order in place, does the judge modify it to allow these communications or does it just end when the perpetrator is imprisoned?

[Gob]

Some people may be surprised to hear the UK doesn't have states.

[TPFKA@W]

Sorry, I don't read @w's posts so can't join in the humor (or lack thereof).

Oh then I can say, with impunity, she is a bossy, bitchy, arrogant (wannabe) know it all .

[TPFKA@W]

Some people may be surprised to hear the UK doesn't have states.

You could start an educational thread on what exactly makes up the UK. I suspect you shan't be arsed though.

[Joe Guy]

Oh then I can say, with impunity, she is a bossy, bitchy, arrogant (wannabe) know it all .

And I can say that you're a bitter old bedpan slinger ...

[BoSoxGal]

Some people may be surprised to hear the UK doesn't have states.

I did mention not being familiar with UK law in this regard and that I was discussing my experience with US law.

[BoSoxGal]

Oh then I can say, with impunity, she is a bossy, bitchy, arrogant (wannabe) know it all .

And I can say that you're a bitter old bedpan slinger ...

I concur. @w calling anybody else who posts here a bitch is hypocrisy at its finest. My so-called arrogance is in stating my knowledge in an area of law where I have some expertise, and ever disagreeing with the bedpan emptier on any matter, even if others here also disagree with her. She's just one of those loathsome women who belittles and attacks other women who dare to question her opinion - exactly why I have her and her buddy Guin on ignore - simply not enough of value in their posts to tolerate personal attack for daring to disagree.

[Gob]

Some people may be surprised to hear the UK doesn't have states.

I did mention not being familiar with UK law in this regard and that I was discussing my experience with US law.

It wasn't you that mooted a state move.

[Guinevere]

Some people may be surprised to hear the UK doesn't have states.

The point being she should get out of the UK and into another jurisdiction. Although that probably won't really solve her problems and could create others.

BigRR - I represent battered women in divorce and custody proceedings for the Women's Bar Foundation/Battered Women's Project. In Massachusetts when there is a restraining order, then the probate court judge cannot require the parties to meet, or require any other contact. There are multiple procedures in place - as you indicated - to ensure that no contact occurs while still allowing each parent access to the children (and to the court system- although they will see each other in court). In particular there is a program to allow pick up and drop off of children at local police stations or other monitored neutral locations. There are also parent coordinator services available to assist the parties with communication about the children.

And no, there is no automatic termination of parental rights because it's a fundamental right and due process is required prior to any such deprivation (ie, a hearing before a neutral party with basic rules of procedure followed, is required, before any parent's rights in their child could be extinguished).

[Gob]

Some people may be surprised to hear the UK doesn't have states.

The point being she should get out of the UK and into another jurisdiction. Although that probably won't really solve her problems and could create others.

Emigrating to another country isn't quite as easy as moving between states, trust me on this.

[Sue U]

I admit I'm not familiar with parental rights laws in the UK, but in the US, being in prison - even for beating your children's mother in front of them, or even murdering her, for that matter - is not automatic grounds for termination of parental rights.

Do folks here believe it should be?

With respect to merely being in prison: Of course not.

With respect to being in prison for beating your children's mother in front of them, or even murdering her: Automatic, no; presumptive, yes.

[BoSoxGal]

Some people may be surprised to hear the UK doesn't have states.

The point being she should get out of the UK and into another jurisdiction. Although that probably won't really solve her problems and could create others.

Emigrating to another country isn't quite as easy as moving between states, trust me on this.

Even if it were, family courts in the US have jurisdiction over whether a parent can move a child to another jurisdiction, and family court orders are supposed to be given full faith and credit by other courts in other states.

Presumably the court order from the UK would be given some measure of full faith and credit by other EU nations - I think somebody already posted about that?

In any case it would be damaging advice, indeed, to encourage a client to flee a court's jurisdiction - and exposes the legal advocate, at least in the US, to severe sanction if proved.

As with all stories in the media, one has to wonder what pertinent facts might have been left out of the article. It would be nice to see the Court's order, to see if it really requires contact to the degree that the article is asserting. Not that I'm arguing that judges aren't capable of such terrible rulings.

[BoSoxGal]

Here's another, longer article about the case in the OP: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mu ... 09#rlabs=6

From the sounds of it, due process occurred here. Clearly the court doesn't think 3 letters per year detailing the kids' progress is untoward; the court is not, in fact, ordering that she have to be in contact with him in a personal way - she doesn't have to respond to letters from him, for instance. Just a 3x/year update on the kids, and the court ordered that she preserve any letters, cards, etc. that he sends the kids for them to read when they are older, if they wish - she's not ordered to read them to the boys when they are received, or to talk positively about him, etc.

And it sounds like the 'threat of jail' was the standard disclaimer on every Court order that advises the recipient s/he will be subject to contempt and possible jail if the order is not followed.

Not quite as dramatic as the original article led on.

However, I concede that the court's demands will impact the victim in a psychological fashion. Again, it raises interesting questions about our system's enshrining of parental rights over most else. It's the same focus that leaves kids in foster care for years because so many statutory hurdles must be overcome before TPR.

[Big RR]

BSG--while I agree about the potential for psychological damage, I wonder if the order would allow her to transfer the letter writing and custodial obligations to someone else--perhaps a relative or friend who could mater of factly comply with the order and send the required photos. I guess we'd have to see the order, but I would bet this would not be a violation.

As for due process, it appears that this order was negotiated between the parties (or their attorneys), so it's terms were not the dictatorial whims of some judge as the article in the OP suggested. So long as his parental rights are not terminated (and there may be any combination of legal and factual reasons why they were not), he does have the right to maintain some contact and be advised of their development and growth. IMHO, there should be a better way to accomplish this than to force the victim to maintain contact with her attacker (maybe forwarding letters through the probation department and allowing a third party to hold his correspondence until the kids ask for it, perhaps), but many awkward burdens often fall on the custodial parent.

As for TPR, many states have streamlined their systems to proceed to permanency hearings quickly and to terminate parental rights if reunification in the near future seems problematic. I know in a number of the abuse/neglect cases I work in, parental rights were terminated in less than a year, but the sad fact is that we also do not offer too many alternatives to the kids who are not readily adoptable. There are far too few good foster homes, and sometimes a monitored borderline parent is better than the alternatives.

Sue--

With respect to merely being in prison: Of course not.

With respect to being in prison for beating your children's mother in front of them, or even murdering her: Automatic, no; presumptive, yes.

Makes sense to me.