I’m with Kate and Lucy on this one.
Denial of contact between a child and parent is, to my mind, nothing short of child abuse, unless there is proven reason for that denial of contact.
Therein lies the rub, “Proven”. There only has to be the accusation of wrongdoing, and the child loses contact with a parent.
Lawyers all over the world use the gambit of accusation to give one parent POWER over the other parent, whether there be wrongdoing or not.
One of the F4J protesters is a fully qualified childminder, able to look after any child in the country, but his own.
F4J have a mothers section, a Grandparents section and various other support sections.
The CSA condone child abuse.
Under CSA 1 rules, a Non Resident Parent(NRP) must have overnight contact of over 104 nights.
Under CSA 2 rules, a NRP must have contact over 52 nights.
If overnight contact over these figures is agreed by both parents, then CS payments can be cut, but if the Resident parent disagrees, then CS payments stay the same, so the NRP is paying CS for more than 104 or 52 nights, for when the NRP is actually looking after the child, so in effect is paying TWICE.
When a case is transferred, there have already been some done, and overnight contact has been cut to below the 52 rule.
CSA cause child abuse, case proven.
I have said before, I would have preferred the attitude displayed openly by Kate, than that displayed by my Ex in the early days.
When it comes to divorce, there will only ever be one winner, and thats the lawyer.