Mum who had throat cut by brutal ex faces JAIL if she refuses to write to him in prison

Natalie Allman, 29, has been told by a judge she risks being locked up if she doesn't update brutal Jason Hughes on their children's progress



A mum battered and slashed to within an inch of her life by her jealous ex-fiance has been threatened with jail if she refuses to write to him in prison.

Horrified Natalie Allman, 29, has been ordered by a judge to send letters three times a year to brutal Jason Hughes who tortured her for seven hours in front of their twin sons.

Under parental rights laws, Natalie is being forced to send updates on the five-year-olds along with photos.

The boys were just two when they saw their father batter their mum with his weight-lifting dumbbells, slash her throat with an Army knife and try to ­suffocate her with a pillow.

If Natalie refuses to write, she will be held in contempt of court and risks being locked up herself.

The devastated mum told the Sunday People: “I feel betrayed that after everything he did his rights mean more than mine – more than my children’s.

“We are the victims, not him. I thought he was going to kill me that night for no reason and my boys saw that. They were terrified.

“I’m so angry that the law still defends his parental rights and that he is still being allowed to control us from behind bars.

“As far as I’m concerned he gave up the right to contact with any of us the night he attacked me but the court doesn’t see it that way.

“What about our rights to get on with our lives and forget the trauma he put us through? As long as we are in constant contact how are we going to do that?”

Natalie ended her relationship with Hughes in February 2012 two months before their planned wedding because of his excessive drinking.

The spurned Territorial Army ­part-time soldier, who was still staying at their house in Hereford, went ­berserk one night after discovering she was seeing someone else.

Natalie said: “He’d never been ­aggressive before, just controlling and he drank too much.

“We’d been separated a few weeks but he was still staying in the house until he found somewhere else.

“He found out that I was seeing someone else and the jealousy just sent him over the edge.

“I woke up in the middle of the night and he was kneeling over me, beating me repeatedly in the face.

“At first I thought he was punching me and then I realised he was using his weights.

“He was smashing them into my face over and over. There was blood everywhere but he didn’t stop.

“It was midnight and then the next thing I knew I was coming round and it was 3am. I don’t know whether I fell asleep or was knocked unconscious.”

Hughes went on to attack Natalie at 3am and again at 6am, tying her up so she couldn’t escape.

The knife wound missed a major artery by millimetres.

Hughes refused to call an ambulance, but at 7am Natalie managed to dial 999 herself. When officers arrived, the couple’s two-year-old twins, Ethan and Timmy, were in bed with their mother and covered in her blood.

Miraculously she survived the attack despite eight wounds to her head and five broken bones in her face.

In August 2012 Hughes was ­sentenced to nine years at Worcester Crown Court for malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

His lawyer said: “His intention was to cause a hideous scar she could not hide if she had dressed up to look pretty. He was trying to make her look ugly to other men.”

Natalie began ­rebuilding her life with her twins, her new ­partner Wayne Young, 43, and their baby boy Aaron, now two.

But last January she was shocked to receive a letter from Hughes’s lawyer saying he was applying for a Residence and Contact Order under Section 8 of the Children Act of 1989.

Natalie, who needed cosmetic surgery on her throat after the savage attack, said: “I got a ­letter asking for six letters a year and phone calls on their birthdays and at Christmas.

“I never thought for a second that he would be granted any contact after what he did. I tried not to think about it.

“It seemed so unlikely anyone would take his side over mine.

“But he put the ­application in and then just before Easter last year I got asked to go to court.”

While Hughes’ expensive lawyers were funded by legal aid Natalie had no representation. She shelled out £3,000 of her savings on solicitors fees to fight the request but shockingly the order was granted.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-who-throat-cut-brutal-5164409#ICID


A LOT more on the above link. To say this judge has messed up is putting it very mildly. The fact that he was allowed legal aid and she wasn't because the new rules put in for legal aid by this government just adds fuel to the fire. What the hell did this Judge think he was up to!

I hope she doesn't find herself in contempt of court for going public.

Three times a year is not a very great burden.  She should just put it in an outline, and fill in the blanks.  Here:

Date:_____
Child:__________
Rept: Second, 2015
Medical condition:  OK, needs glasses
Shots:  All, pending measles
Seen granmum:  Yes
Seen granpa: Yes
Sends love. (optional)

She should just consider it something you've gotta do...like paying taxes. It will help her when she hits him with the bill/suit for the child's university tuition.

Do you really think a father who tortured a mother IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN for 7 HOURS has any right to be told how those children are doing?

Don't you think they will have enough trouble in life with that in their heads without having to be in contact with him? I actually think that being forced to keep in contact with him and allowing him to know what is going on in their lives is child abuse.

personally i think they should blind him deafen him and chop his nuts off.....

but that goes against my general principles so I cant .....

lock him up...forever...in a single 6x3 with one hour a day out for excercise

stale bread and water

and NO direct human contact....

in other words....BREAK HIM.......

Original Quill wrote:Three times a year is not a very great burden.  She should just put it in an outline, and fill in the blanks.  Here:

Date:_____
Child:__________
Rept: Second, 2015
Medical condition:  OK, needs glasses
Shots:  All, pending measles
Seen granmum:  Yes
Seen granpa: Yes
Sends love. (optional)

She should just consider it something you've gotta do...like paying taxes.  It will help her when she hits him with the bill/suit for the child's university tuition.

Actually that's pretty good quill lol

Original Quill wrote:Three times a year is not a very great burden.  She should just put it in an outline, and fill in the blanks.  Here:

Date:_____
Child:__________
Rept: Second, 2015
Medical condition:  OK, needs glasses
Shots:  All, pending measles
Seen granmum:  Yes
Seen granpa: Yes
Sends love. (optional)

She should just consider it something you've gotta do...like paying taxes.  It will help her when she hits him with the bill/suit for the child's university tuition.

should mention in everyone how they learnt
http://www.womensaid.org.uk/page.asp?section=00010001001000160002


all in all I think it is pretty stupid condition of the court.

couldn't she pass the info required to a court appointed person who would then pass it onto the scumbag and she would therefore have no direct contact with him?

regardless of what happened - and may he rot in hell and find some "friends" in jail - the law must be followed.

Apparently it's the law over there.  So, both the court and the mother have to comply, unless Parliament changes the law.

Add in things as you see fit.  Education.  Vacation.  She could even add vindictive things, like: Kids love mummy's new boyfriend, whom they now call Daddy.  Lol.

Original Quill wrote:Apparently it's the law over there.  So, both the court and the mother have to comply, unless Parliament changes the law.

Add in things as you see fit.  Education.  Vacation.  She could even add vindictive things, like: Kids love mummy's new boyfriend, whom they now call Daddy.  Lol.

Arrangements for contact are decided by the judge. He could for example have asked that the school give a periodic update. It seems he is one of those morons that thinks just because he tried to kill mum doesnt make him a bad dad an unfortunately there are a lot of them in family court.

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Apparently it's the law over there.  So, both the court and the mother have to comply, unless Parliament changes the law.

Add in things as you see fit.  Education.  Vacation.  She could even add vindictive things, like: Kids love mummy's new boyfriend, whom they now call Daddy.  Lol.

Arrangements for contact are decided by the judge. He could for example have asked that the school give a periodic update. It seems he is one of those morons that thinks just because he tried to kill mum doesnt make him a bad dad an unfortunately there are a lot of them in family court.

didn't know that. Have to agree with your assessment. super Morin.

Nems wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Apparently it's the law over there.  So, both the court and the mother have to comply, unless Parliament changes the law.

Add in things as you see fit.  Education.  Vacation.  She could even add vindictive things, like: Kids love mummy's new boyfriend, whom they now call Daddy.  Lol.

Arrangements for contact are decided by the judge. He could for example have asked that the school give a periodic update. It seems he is one of those morons that thinks just because he tried to kill mum doesnt make him a bad dad an unfortunately there are a lot of them in family court.

Under the Children's Act of 1989, Section 8 holds:

Wiki wrote:Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 outlines the orders which can issued by the court. A ‘contact order’ outlines the requirements, of the person the child resides with, to allow contact with another person.

A ‘prohibited steps order’ prevents a parent from exercising their full parental responsibility without consent of the court.

A ‘residence order’ puts in place the arrangements for whom a child should live with.

A ‘specific issue order’ relates to directions given from the court to address a query that has arisen regarding parental responsibility for a child. Section 8 orders cannot be made in regards to children who are looked after; with the exception of the residence order.

When an application is made to the court for a section 8 order the court takes into account: the nature of the proposed application; the connection the person has to the child; the disruption that could be caused to the child and, if the child is being looked after by the local authority: the local authorities plans for the child’s future and the wishes of the child’s parents. A person who gains a residence order for a child will hold parental responsibility for the time the order is in place. Despite this, the Act forbids anyone to change the child’s surname or remove them from the United Kingdom without permission from all those with parental responsibility or with express permission from the court. Under section 63(3) of the [1980 c. 43.]

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the court has powers to punish those who do not abide by the ruling set out in the residence order.

The purpose of the Act is to serve the best interests of the child, not one parent or another. The dispute between the parents--no matter how heinous--must not enter the picture. I am sure the judge or magistrate took into full account the best interests of the children. A written report three times a year is certainly the least onerous order the court could have crafted.

I know the injuries and assault by the father were ugly, and left damaging scars. But seeking retribution for them through manipulating the children is not in the boys' best interests. Updates by the school do not fulfill the requirements of a 'contact order'. I'm not even sure the school is a party to the action, nor whether the court has jurisdiction over the operations of the school.

Original Quill wrote:

Nems wrote:

Arrangements for contact are decided by the judge. He could for example have asked that the school give a periodic update. It seems he is one of those morons that thinks just because he tried to kill mum doesnt make him a bad dad an unfortunately there are a lot of them in family court.

Under the Children's Act of 1989, Section 8 holds:

Wiki wrote:Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 outlines the orders which can issued by the court. A ‘contact order’ outlines the requirements, of the person the child resides with, to allow contact with another person.

A ‘prohibited steps order’ prevents a parent from exercising their full parental responsibility without consent of the court.

A ‘residence order’ puts in place the arrangements for whom a child should live with.

A ‘specific issue order’ relates to directions given from the court to address a query that has arisen regarding parental responsibility for a child. Section 8 orders cannot be made in regards to children who are looked after; with the exception of the residence order.

When an application is made to the court for a section 8 order the court takes into account: the nature of the proposed application; the connection the person has to the child; the disruption that could be caused to the child and, if the child is being looked after by the local authority: the local authorities plans for the child’s future and the wishes of the child’s parents. A person who gains a residence order for a child will hold parental responsibility for the time the order is in place. Despite this, the Act forbids anyone to change the child’s surname or remove them from the United Kingdom without permission from all those with parental responsibility or with express permission from the court. Under section 63(3) of the [1980 c. 43.]

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the court has powers to punish those who do not abide by the ruling set out in the residence order.

The purpose of the Act is to serve the best interests of the child, not one parent or another.  The dispute between the parents--no matter how heinous--must not enter the picture.  I am sure the judge or magistrate took into full account the best interests of the children.  A written report three times a year is certainly the least onerous order the court could have crafted.

I know the injuries and assault by the father were ugly, and left damaging scars.  But seeking retribution for them through manipulating the children is not in the boys' best interests.  Updates by the school do not fulfill the requirements of a 'contact order'.  I'm not even sure the school is a party to the action, nor whether the court has jurisdiction over the operations of the school.

That's the theory, reality is far different.
The Judge decides what the contact looks like to his own opinion.

For example on one of the multitude of court hearings for access re my children, my ex husband was told by the Judge he was literally drinking in the last chance saloon and one more incident and the only contact he would have with the children was by letter.

Less than two months later I was held in contempt by a different judge and told I was going to prison for 2 years if I did not allow ex to have contact with the children irrespective of how drunk he was.

Its the judges choice and that's one of the reasons the family court in this country is in tatters.

Nems wrote:
That's the theory, reality is far different.
The Judge decides what the contact looks like to his own opinion.

For example on one of the multitude of court hearings for access re my children, my ex husband was told by the Judge he was literally drinking in the last chance saloon and one more incident and the only contact he would have with the children was by letter.

Less than two months later I was held in contempt by a different judge and told I was going to prison for 2 years if I did not allow ex to have contact with the children irrespective of how drunk he was.

Its the judges choice and that's one of the reasons the family court in this country is in tatters.

As you say, that's the theory.  I can't count the times I have walked out of a courtroom totally pissed, and wanting to scream.  Individual judges and their slant on things can take you on a roller coaster ride.  The only thing that works is to appeal, appeal, appeal...in other words, perseverance.  As you've learned, the next judge will have a completely different take on the same facts.

But if you are appealing, you are simultaneously cancelling out the last guy's ruling.  That's the difference.  Of course, it's expensive, but so is healthcare (in this country), and that's only your whole life!

The law is only a skeleton; it's the people who make the choices, hopefully following the outline.  Courts are the only ones, among democratic institutions, that behave like dictators.  What's democratic about it is the appeal...another individual gets to look it over.  It's like three-dimensional chess...you have got to play it both laterally and vertically.

Original Quill wrote:

Nems wrote:
That's the theory, reality is far different.
The Judge decides what the contact looks like to his own opinion.

For example on one of the multitude of court hearings for access re my children, my ex husband was told by the Judge he was literally drinking in the last chance saloon and one more incident and the only contact he would have with the children was by letter.

Less than two months later I was held in contempt by a different judge and told I was going to prison for 2 years if I did not allow ex to have contact with the children irrespective of how drunk he was.

Its the judges choice and that's one of the reasons the family court in this country is in tatters.

As you say, that's the theory.  I can't count the times I have walked out of a courtroom totally pissed, and wanting to scream.  Individual judges and their slant on things can take you on a roller coaster ride.  The only thing that works is to appeal, appeal, appeal...in other words, perseverance.  As you've learned, the next judge will have a completely different take on the same facts.

But if you are appealing, you are simultaneously cancelling out the last guy's ruling.  That's the difference.  Of course, it's expensive, but so is healthcare (in this country), and that's only your whole life!

The law is only a skeleton; it's the people who make the choices, hopefully following the outline.  Courts are the only ones, among democratic institutions, that behave like dictators.  What's democratic about it is the appeal...another individual gets to look it over.  It's like three-dimensional chess...you have got to play it both laterally and vertically.

Unfortunately there is no automatic right of appeal

You use the tools available to you.  In the US there is always a right of appeal...however it may not always be given to one.  There are generally two levels of appellate courts, three levels of court overall.

Trial court is level 1, and responsible for introduction of facts (testimony and evidence) and general adjudication.

Appellate court is level 2...a review to see if trial judge got issues of law correct, in accordance with the rules of the jurisdiction.  Appeal must be considered by this court.

Supreme court is level 3...discretionary review--for novel questions or when the court wants to make policy, resolve conflicts between two or more courts below, and such.  Only this court can decline to review...that's what discretionary means in this context.

Appeal is a matter of right on all three levels.  However, to appeal is not necessarily to get considered. The Supreme Court can decline the review if there is no question upon which to make policy. Again, it's the one court that has discretion.

I don't know what policy would be served by denying a right to appeal. Seems unfair by our way of thinking.

Original Quill wrote:You use the tools available to you.  In the US there is always a right of appeal...however it may not always be given to one.  There are generally two levels of appellate courts, three levels of court overall.

Trial court is level 1, and responsible for introduction of facts (testimony and evidence) and general adjudication.

Appellate court is level 2...a review to see if trial judge got issues of law correct, in accordance with the rules of the jurisdiction.  Appeal must be considered by this court.

Supreme court is level 3...discretionary review--for novel questions or when the court wants to make policy, resolve conflicts between two or more courts below, and such.  Only this court can decline to review...that's what discretionary means in this context.

Appeal is a matter of right on all three levels.  However, to appeal is not necessarily to get considered.  The Supreme Court can decline the review if there is no question upon which to make policy.  Again, it's the one court that has discretion.

I don't know what policy would be served by denying a right to appeal.  Seems unfair by our way of thinking.

You are right Quill, it is very unfair.

If this report is accurate, the notion of her being required to do this is absolutely insane! Society should be glad she didn't just kill this piece of shit her own self.

Ben_Reilly wrote:If this report is accurate, the notion of her being required to do this is absolutely insane! Society should be glad she didn't just kill this piece of shit her own self.

I think this is one of those situations where passion wants to prevail over reason. There are two different issues going on here: 1) desire for retribution; and 2) welfare of the children. The desire for retribution is a sentencing matter in a criminal trial; the welfare of the children is the primary focus in family courts, and it is strong.

The court in this case was pursuing the welfare of the children, whereas most of us on-lookers are still motivated by the lingering desire for retribution (so heinous was the crime). It's easy to confuse the two. Very often we hear of mothers denying parental rights to the father as a means of punishing him...apparently, it is a very common human instinct to confuse the two. Courts are extremely sensitive to this confusion, and the first rule of family courts is to separate punishment of a parent from welfare of the children.

Oh what a tangled web we weave. As the Walter Scott poem points out, the problem is that to be motivated by our passions is to deny the wishes and well-being of others...our children. In effect, the script so motivates us that we become selfish: in effect, we are saying...put my purposes first over my children. This is a dilemma that family courts face all the time.

Only this time it's an extreme case. Newspapers love this kind of thing.

Couldn't disagree more. It is the welfare of the children that he should not know about them or be in contact with them. He tortured their mother IN FRONT OF THEM and cut her throat IN FRONT OF THEM, which must, at the very least, have traumatised them. If they then know that he knows where they are what they are doing, how will they ever feel safe again? Plus, it teaches them that you can do something like that and still have a hold over your children, not a good life lesson.

risingsun wrote:Couldn't disagree more.  It is the welfare of the children that he should not know about them or be in contact with them.  He tortured their mother IN FRONT OF THEM and cut her throat IN FRONT OF THEM, which must, at the very least, have traumatised them.  If they then know that he knows where they are what they are doing, how will they ever feel safe again?  Plus, it teaches them that you can do something like that and still have a hold over your children, not a good life lesson.

You are still preoccupied with the justifying a punishment. That whole issue is precisely what the courts must put aside in order to have a clean slate when it comes to welfare of the children.

If you don't separate the two issues, where do we draw the line? We will be going down that slippery slope in lesser and lesser cases, until we are right back to where we were 50-75 years ago. It use to be, a divorcing parent would make the same argument you just made if a former spouse had taken on a lover: what kind of a man would hurt his wife like that! And, the children must be taught to be more considerate.

Plus, look at your choice of words: "...hold over your children." Children are not chattel to be held and withheld. You are using the very language of reward and punishment.

Original Quill wrote:

risingsun wrote:Couldn't disagree more.  It is the welfare of the children that he should not know about them or be in contact with them.  He tortured their mother IN FRONT OF THEM and cut her throat IN FRONT OF THEM, which must, at the very least, have traumatised them.  If they then know that he knows where they are what they are doing, how will they ever feel safe again?  Plus, it teaches them that you can do something like that and still have a hold over your children, not a good life lesson.

You are still preoccupied with the justifying a punishment.  That whole issue is precisely what the courts must put aside in order to have a clean slate when it comes to welfare of the children.

If you don't separate the two issues, where do we draw the line?  We will be going down that slippery slope in lesser and lesser cases, until we are right back to where we were 50-75 years ago.  It use to be, a divorcing parent would make the same argument you just made if a former spouse had taken on a lover: what kind of a man would hurt his wife like that!  And, the children must be taught to be more considerate.

Plus, look at your choice of words: "...hold over your children."  Children are not chattel to be held and withheld.  You are using the very language of reward and punishment.  

Have to disagree Quill. The over riding concern should be for the safety and well being of the children. If the judge wants the father updated then he should have chosen another way. Clearly he needs extensive training in Domestic abuse. Anyone with an understanding of DV would never have put the father back in control like that. The court should not have a clean slate with regard to the children it should have an understanding of what witnessing violence like that will do to those children.

Original Quill wrote:

risingsun wrote:Couldn't disagree more.  It is the welfare of the children that he should not know about them or be in contact with them.  He tortured their mother IN FRONT OF THEM and cut her throat IN FRONT OF THEM, which must, at the very least, have traumatised them.  If they then know that he knows where they are what they are doing, how will they ever feel safe again?  Plus, it teaches them that you can do something like that and still have a hold over your children, not a good life lesson.

You are still preoccupied with the justifying a punishment.  That whole issue is precisely what the courts must put aside in order to have a clean slate when it comes to welfare of the children.

If you don't separate the two issues, where do we draw the line?  We will be going down that slippery slope in lesser and lesser cases, until we are right back to where we were 50-75 years ago.  It use to be, a divorcing parent would make the same argument you just made if a former spouse had taken on a lover: what kind of a man would hurt his wife like that!  And, the children must be taught to be more considerate.

Plus, look at your choice of words: "...hold over your children."  Children are not chattel to be held and withheld.  You are using the very language of reward and punishment.  

I don't give a damn about the punishment. I am discussing the mental health and trauma of the children and the way it will be exasperated by the knowledge that the person they saw being extremely violent, can know where they are. Quite honestly, if you can't see that that will frighten the hell out of them, I'm very surprised.

They will know that a very violent man does 'have a hold over them' because the judge has allowed him to 'have a hold over them' by him knowing where they are, and that has nothing to do with his parental rights. The hold won't be because he is their father, the hold will be their terror at knowing a man who they know, and have seen, is excessively violent and prepared to torture for hours, knows where they are and can come after them on his release. Most men who have done something very violent in front of their children are not allowed to see them again, for that very reason. The judge hasn't put the rights of the child first.

risingsun wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are still preoccupied with the justifying a punishment.  That whole issue is precisely what the courts must put aside in order to have a clean slate when it comes to welfare of the children.

If you don't separate the two issues, where do we draw the line?  We will be going down that slippery slope in lesser and lesser cases, until we are right back to where we were 50-75 years ago.  It use to be, a divorcing parent would make the same argument you just made if a former spouse had taken on a lover: what kind of a man would hurt his wife like that!  And, the children must be taught to be more considerate.

Plus, look at your choice of words: "...hold over your children."  Children are not chattel to be held and withheld.  You are using the very language of reward and punishment.  

I don't give a damn about the punishment.  I am discussing the mental health and trauma of the children and the way it will be exasperated by the knowledge that the person they saw being extremely violent, can know where they are.  Quite honestly, if you can't see that that will frighten the hell out of them, I'm very surprised.

They will know that a very violent man does 'have a hold over them' because the judge has allowed him to 'have a hold over them' by him knowing where they are, and that has nothing to do with his parental rights.  The hold won't be because he is their father, the hold will be their terror at knowing a man who they know, and have seen, is excessively violent and prepared to torture for hours, knows where they are and can come after them on his release.  Most men who have done something very violent in front of their children are not allowed to see them again, for that very reason.  The judge hasn't put the rights of the child first.

You admit the standard is welfare of the children, and deny that you harbor any motive for punishment. In fact, there is a paucity of evidence for the thesis you present. Has the connection between psychological harm to the boys, on the one hand, and the requirement of three letters a year by the mum, on the other, been established?

In fact, I haven't seen any psychological evidence--to this effect, or otherwise--discussed in this case. Certainly the article would not leave out such an important detail. Psychological harm does come under the ambit of welfare (of the children), but it must be supported by evidence. Assumptions are not facts.

You won't have seen it because they don't allow psychological profiles of the children to be published, surely you would know that. All medical evidence pertaining to the children would have been withheld from journalists, quite rightly. Are you telling me that seeing their mother tortured for 6 hours and watching her having her throat cut will not have had a psychological impact on them? Or that they would not be scared to death of the person who did it, regardless of the fact he is their father, or that they would want to know that he can't find them, because they would be terrified not only for themselves but their mother.

risingsun wrote:You won't have seen it because they don't allow psychological profiles of the children to be published, surely you would know that.  All medical evidence pertaining to the children would have been withheld from journalists, quite rightly.  Are you telling me that seeing their mother tortured for 6 hours and watching her having her throat cut will not have had a psychological impact on them?   Or that they would not be scared to death of the person who did it, regardless of the fact he is their father, or that they would want to know that he can't find them, because they would be terrified not only for themselves but their mother.    

By redirecting the question to the welfare of the children, it almost demands psychological evidence.  So much--as with this question--turns upon what effect on the emotional well-being of the boys, anything will have--including denial of contact with the father.

Almost everything going on in family courts is under lock and key, it seems.  But that doesn't mean we may substitute our own emotional responses for facts.  If the psychological evidence has been withheld from publication, we must conclude generally that the judge or magistrate in this case had good and ample evidence to come to the conclusion he did.  At any rate, we don't know.

Assumptions are not facts.

You obviously don't understand about family courts Quill.  Judges have gone against psychological evidence many, many times.  My response is in no way emotional.  It is based on knowledge of childrens responses to violence and the way they need to be protected for those that commit it in front of them.  I had to deal with the consquences of my grandaughter's stepfather abusing her.  I am very well up on the trauma involved and the way children need to feel safe and protected in order to gain a sense of security again, and the need for them not to feel that the violence is in any way 'normal' so they are able to set boundaries in their lives.

In any case, you are assuming that the Judge acted properly in light of evidence he had.  Most people here who have had to deal with family courts know that is not the case in many instances.

risingsun wrote:You obviously don't understand about family courts Quill.  Judges have gone against psychological evidence many, many times.

Yes, to great peril.  Even if an order is not an appealable order, it does not mean there isn't harm by a wrong decision.  Law progresses by increments, through precedent.  The worst nightmare of a judge is to see his own arguments or words come back to him in the form of a set of facts he would abhor.  If the logic is there, he has to live with it.  After all:

risingsun wrote:My response is in no way emotional.  It is based on knowledge of childrens responses to violence and the way they need to be protected for those that commit it in front of them.  I had to deal with the consquences of my grandaughter's stepfather abusing her.  I am very well up on the trauma involved and the way children need to feel safe and protected in order to gain a sense of security again, and the need for them not to feel that the violence is in any way 'normal' so they are able to set boundaries in their lives.

I don't mean to suggest that you are being emotional.  I am just saying we can't assume anything.  Emotion comes into the picture for all of us in the extreme case--and this is extreme--but just because we are shocked does not alter the the analysis we (or some judge) must make.

That's what I mean about you don't understand. 'Yes, to great peril. Even if an order is not an appealable order, it does not mean there isn't harm by a wrong decision. Law progresses by increments, through precedent' - Not in British family courts it doesn't. There is no appeal, there is no precedent, the Judges order what they want and no-one can gainsay them. Very often, if someone tries to publicise what has happened in the court they are jailed for contempt. There is no precedent, one case cannot be quoted as reason for a judgement on another. The judge issue his judgement and that's it, no comeback.

Original Quill wrote:
The purpose of the Act is to serve the best interests of the child, not one parent or another. The dispute between the parents--no matter how heinous--must not enter the picture. I am sure the judge or magistrate took into full account the best interests of the children. A written report three times a year is certainly the least onerous order the court could have crafted.

I know the injuries and assault by the father were ugly, and left damaging scars. But seeking retribution for them through manipulating the children is not in the boys' best interests. Updates by the school do not fulfill the requirements of a 'contact order'. I'm not even sure the school is a party to the action, nor whether the court has jurisdiction over the operations of the school.

Attempted murder, mutilation, and the mental scaring of 5 year olds isn't a reason to deny him any parental rights? The boys best interest would be to have no contact with a a violent possessive individual who thinks it's perfectly ok to horribly scar a woman for dumping him. Can't see how they will get anything positive out of contact with him.

risingsun wrote:That's what I mean about you don't understand. 'Yes, to great peril.  Even if an order is not an appealable order, it does not mean there isn't harm by a wrong decision.  Law progresses by increments, through precedent' - Not in British family courts it doesn't.  There is no appeal, there is no precedent, the Judges order what they want and no-one can gainsay them.  Very often, if someone tries to publicise what has happened in the court they are jailed for contempt.  There is no precedent, one case cannot be quoted as reason for a judgement on another.  The judge issue his judgement and that's it, no comeback.

That is harsh. Too bad.

jaded fox wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
The purpose of the Act is to serve the best interests of the child, not one parent or another.  The dispute between the parents--no matter how heinous--must not enter the picture.  I am sure the judge or magistrate took into full account the best interests of the children.  A written report three times a year is certainly the least onerous order the court could have crafted.

I know the injuries and assault by the father were ugly, and left damaging scars.  But seeking retribution for them through manipulating the children is not in the boys' best interests.  Updates by the school do not fulfill the requirements of a 'contact order'.  I'm not even sure the school is a party to the action, nor whether the court has jurisdiction over the operations of the school.

Attempted murder, mutilation, and the mental scaring of 5 year olds isn't a reason to deny him any parental rights? The boys best interest would be to have no contact with a a violent possessive individual who thinks it's perfectly ok to horribly scar a woman for dumping him. Can't see how they will get anything positive out of contact with him.

I guess we'll never know.

Of course we know Quill. We don't need law or doctors to tell us that a 5 year old watching his mother beaten and tortured for 6 hours and her throat being slit will be mentally scarred, and needs protection from the person who did it.

risingsun wrote:Of course we know Quill.  We don't need law or doctors to tell us that a 5 year old watching his mother beaten and tortured for 6 hours and her throat being slit will be mentally scarred, and needs protection from the person who did it.  

That child will be mentally scarred forever.

risingsun wrote:Of course we know Quill.  We don't need law or doctors to tell us that a 5 year old watching his mother beaten and tortured for 6 hours and her throat being slit will be mentally scarred, and needs protection from the person who did it.  

I haven't spoken to the boys or anyone who knows them.  What I see is that this has scarred you a great deal.  Okay...say so and be done with it.

If the boys need protection from their father, uncle, sister, or the local school bully, I'm sure the police can take care of it.  In short enough time, they will be old enough to take care of themselves.  By my calculations the boys will be 14-15 when their father gets out. They grow up fast.

eddie wrote:

risingsun wrote:Of course we know Quill.  We don't need law or doctors to tell us that a 5 year old watching his mother beaten and tortured for 6 hours and her throat being slit will be mentally scarred, and needs protection from the person who did it.  

That child will be mentally scarred forever.

We don't know that...that's just a guess. Sass has said the medical records are sealed.

Original Quill wrote:

risingsun wrote:Of course we know Quill.  We don't need law or doctors to tell us that a 5 year old watching his mother beaten and tortured for 6 hours and her throat being slit will be mentally scarred, and needs protection from the person who did it.  

I haven't spoken to the boys or anyone who knows them.  What I see is that this has scarred you a great deal.  Okay...say so and be done with it.

If the boys need protection from their father, uncle, sister, or the local school bully, I'm sure the police can take care of it.  In short enough time, they will be old enough to take care of themselves.  By my calculations the boys will be 14-15 when their father gets out.  They grow up fast.

Scarred me? What on earth are you talking about? The world does not exist in a bubble in a court room. Anyone who has looked after children would know children would be scarred by that, I'm utterly amazed that someone who is a father would even think that worth discussing.

'In short enough time, they will be old enough to take care of themselves'.!!!!!!!! They are 5 years old FGS, barely old enough to go to infant school. Grow up fast? Well here we don't class 14 and 15 year olds as grown up, and in any case he won't serve the full 10 yrs, normally 2/3 of the sentence is served in prison, so he will probably get out when the boys are about 11. During that time, they need to know that their father does not know where they are or what they are doing so they can grow up feeling safe.

Don't try and say this is all about something I feel. This is all about what those children will feel.

I have to say quill, I'm with sassy on this one.
What the heck are you on about????

eddie wrote:I have to say quill, I'm with sassy on this one.
What the heck are you on about????

Read the whole thread. I've already repeated myself over three times.

I understand your emotional response. But the law treats such matters more calmly, dispassionately and rationally.

Will talk after you have read.

Quill, you are talking out the back of your head, and you are trying to downplay what other people say by calling it emotional. There is nothing emotional about it. It is logical in the extreme. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to know that a child will be traumatised by watching someone being tortured for 6 hours and having their throat cut, let alone when that person is their mother, the person who that look to for protection. In fact, as a father, I think it is simply weird that you don't seem to understand that. I have read what you have written and think that it is frankly silly.

risingsun wrote:You don't need to be a psychiatrist to know that a child will be traumatised...

Yes, I'm afraid you do.  It's not just that the issue is one for experts in childhood development and psychology.  It is also legal procedure.

Courts don't accept assumptions and emotional responses into evidence without foundation.  A person might be able to assess his or her own emotions and testify about that, but for a third party to testify about the emotional state of yet another person, an expert is required.  Simply put: somebody's testimony must be entered into evidence, or it is not "a matter or record" (how often have you heard this phrase in TV shows, etc.?).  If it is not a matter of record, no Court may consider it...it didn't happen.

This is particularly true when it is a child, who doesn't understand complex psychological terms and concepts. In this case, the affect on two boys is at issue in a Court bound by law to decide only the issue of the welfare of the children.  I gather from you that the boys were evaluated, but that testimony (or report) is not made public.  That is British law.  Hence my comment: "I guess we'll never know."

Given what we do know, it appears the Court heard the testimony and made a decision upon it.  It has rendered a decision based upon a closer inspection of the facts than available to us.  Again, that is British law.

Being outside of the information loop (i.e., the 'record'), any opinion we may have is mere guessing.

No Quill, you don't. I'm not discussing what the court needs to know. Mothers and fathers every day know when a child has been traumatised. It's sad that as a parent you don't realise that.

risingsun wrote:No Quill, you don't.  I'm not discussing what the court needs to know.  Mothers and fathers every day know when a child has been traumatised.  It's sad that as a parent you don't realise that.

Perhaps, but then again this thread isn't about me.

If you're not discussing courts, and not discussing psychology, and not discussing anything being done about it, I guess you are just opinionating. Carry on.

Original Quill wrote:

risingsun wrote:No Quill, you don't.  I'm not discussing what the court needs to know.  Mothers and fathers every day know when a child has been traumatised.  It's sad that as a parent you don't realise that.

Perhaps, but then again this thread isn't about me.

If you're not discussing courts, and not discussing psychology, and not discussing anything being done about it, I guess you are just opinionating.  Carry on.

Oh don't try that one. I, and others, were expressing our disgust at the Judges decision and the reason for that disgust. You could only see it in the context of a courtroom. Parents and grandparents judge everyday about what will effect their children and how much, which why we are qualified to judge the Judge as wanting.

risingsun wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Perhaps, but then again this thread isn't about me.

If you're not discussing courts, and not discussing psychology, and not discussing anything being done about it, I guess you are just opinionating.  Carry on.

Oh don't try that one.  I, and others, were expressing our disgust at the Judges decision and the reason for that disgust.  You could only see it in the context of a courtroom.  Parents and grandparents judge everyday about what will effect their children and how much, which why we are qualified to judge the Judge as wanting.

That and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. We don't know the judges decision because the record is sealed. We only know the ultimate outcome: three notes a year.

There's nothing left but the shouting.

See, flippant again when you don't know what to say. I judge the Judge as wanting, I doubt many mothers would feel any differently.

Quill I refer back to my question. How on earth can this child NOT be scarred for life after this?

risingsun wrote:See, flippant again when you don't know what to say. I judge the Judge as wanting, I doubt many mothers would feel any differently.

I agree as a mother. This judge had the tools to prevent this but chose not too. As nems said he is a moron.

But she needs to follow this through regardless of how gross this is as her children need her at home not in jail. hopefully the publicity will help and perhaps lead to a judicial review of the case.

eddie wrote:Quill I refer back to my question. How on earth can this child NOT be scarred for life after this?

As you've heard me say a thousand times, you can not prove a negative.  How can the child not be scarred?  First give me the logically positive thesis on how the scarring comes about--without assumptions, and offering only positive and real proof.  You can't talk about something that isn't there, so put it out there.

I can only give you theories, eds.  We don't know what the experts told the judge, as you have heard, but perhaps s/he (the judge) heard the experts say that by maintaining a relationship with the father the boys would be able to avoid, or at least minimize the said scarring.  Perhaps the judge felt the minimal three contacts a year kept open a door.

Again, we don't know what the experts said, and none of us are child psychologists.  It's all speculation, including the claim there will be scarring.  But, just as with your car, you start with figuring out what is wrong before you go about fixing things.  What do we have?  PTSD?  Interpersonal trauma?  Aggression trauma?  As one therapist says:

Vijai P. Sharma, Ph.D wrote:Psychologists, researching and treating the victims of interpersonal trauma, have given us valuable insights into the emotional consequences. One such insight is this: How severely a person will suffer from a man-made trauma depends on the meaning that traumatic event holds for that person. Thus, meaning of the event is the most important thing.

This holds the possibility that one can shape the meaning of trauma best by keeping the channels of communication open.  Just perhaps the judge, on advice of experts, was working on the theory that communication with the father would hold a chance of minimizing the traumatic aftermath...that so far from trying to punish the father once more, you could use him effectively and creatively for the welfare of the boys.  Not everything is 'reward and punishment'.  Lakoff, Geo., Moral Politics. The notes that the father has already written to the boys suggest that he at least has their welfare at heart.

Again, none of us know. But there are possibilities, as you see.