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

First topic message reminder :

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'm not replying further after this, because I think it is truly weird that a parent would need a legal report to tell him that watching their mother (one of the people they love most in the world) being tortured by their father (the other person they love most in the world) would be traumatic to a 5 year old.

There are many other things about your replies I find weired, too many to go into.

I could be wrong, but I'm sure on Speak I remember you saying that your wife was abusive and you had to send your daughters away because of it. If that is the case, your stance on this issue is so weird it's off the scale.

The judge needs a kick up the arse.

nicko wrote:The judge needs a kick up the arse.

I would go further and say the entire British legal system needs a kick up the ass!  You don't have a right to freedom of speech.  You don't have freedom of association.  You've got a national religion, fcs!  You don't have a right to appeal.  In this very case we have learned about secret proceedings.  Britain is closer to European authoritarian systems, than the rest of the world.

In the US we learn about these kinds of institutions in history books....now to learn we have a working museum to watch in Old Bailey.

Couldn't resist, surely as a lawyer you know that 'The Old Bailey' has nothing to do with family courts. You do know that, surely?

risingsun wrote:Couldn't resist, surely as a lawyer you know that 'The Old Bailey' has nothing to do with family courts.  You do know that, surely?

Haha...yes, I even thought of that as I wrote.  But note that I was speaking of the "entire British legal system" and I needed a metonymy for the whole British legal system to make the point.  What's better known than Old Bailey?  The examples I raised--freedom of speech, association, religion and due process--were not particularly of family court matters, either.

Original Quill wrote:

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.

I do bow to your knowledge and experience of the law Quill, I can't compete with you there nor am I about to refute your expertise.

I can only say, going by people who see an horrific act carried out, that they are mostly traumatised and scarred for a while - depending on the act and each individual person.
But a child seeing his mother brutally attacked???? It's logical surely, that the child will be somehow affected by this?? As I've said, even the common man normally needs some kind of counselling after witnessing a traumatic event.

I think we are both right, eds, in this case.  

Forget what the judge said, because we don't know.  But the best scenario would seem to be that the psychologists feel what is best for the boys is to maintain the connection with both parents.

It's an easy solution for the judge because it's only three notes a year.  Nobody is trying to justify what happened, nor how bad it was.  The focus for all principals is the well-being of the boys. Our opinions are even less relevant--it's not a public matter.

Original Quill wrote:I think we are both right, eds, in this case.  

Forget what the judge said, because we don't know.  But the best scenario would seem to be that the psychologists feel what is best for the boys is to maintain the connection with both parents.

It's an easy solution for the judge because it's only three notes a year.  Nobody is trying to justify what happened, nor how bad it was.  The focus for all principals is the well-being of the boys.  Our opinions are even less relevant--it's not a public matter.

I guess so. But if I was the mother or the grandparent Id be less than happy.

Still sometmes I think it's best for the child to have their own eyes opened in their own time.

Quill, you said you only go on the evidence presented. You don't know that psychiatrist said the boys should keep in contact with father. I doubt he did, but I don't know either. Judges in family courts go against psychiatrists reports all the time.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I think we are both right, eds, in this case.  

Forget what the judge said, because we don't know.  But the best scenario would seem to be that the psychologists feel what is best for the boys is to maintain the connection with both parents.

It's an easy solution for the judge because it's only three notes a year.  Nobody is trying to justify what happened, nor how bad it was.  The focus for all principals is the well-being of the boys.  Our opinions are even less relevant--it's not a public matter.

I guess so. But if I was the mother or the grandparent Id be less than happy.

Still sometmes I think it's best for the child to have their own eyes opened in their own time.

Of course you'd be less than happy.  Litigants are never happy...that's why they are in court.  Expectations exceed possibilities, and they will never get what they want.

But you can't treat children as chattel.  That's why the Court takes an independent course.  The Court apparently disagrees with your assessment, and the Court has the power.  End of...

risingsun wrote:Quill, you said you only go on the evidence presented.  You don't know that psychiatrist said the boys should keep in contact with father.  I doubt he did, but I don't know either.  Judges in family courts go against psychiatrists reports all the time.

I'm only going by the results. Working backwards, the judge had the input of the experts, and the judge said the contact should be maintained. The probability is that the judge acted on advice of the expert, probably a psychologist, not a psychiatrist (unless one of the boys is psychotic).

I go by direct evidence when it is available. When the file is sealed, as in this case, we have to infer things by the result.