LETTERS Implacably hostile
Sir: Alasdair Palmer CA clean break with fairness', 13 November) is not quite right when he suggests that expressed 'implaca- ble hostility' of a mother will amount to a cogent reason for depriving a father of all contact with his natural child.
In a case which I submitted to the Court of Appeal this month, the president of the Family Division expressed the view that there was little point in having court hear- ings at all if the mother could express implacable hostility and thereby defeat the father's contact. The Court of Appeal was not prepared to have its authority flouted by a determined and vindictive woman and made an order for contact despite the mother saying she would not comply with an order of the County Court and would risk going to prison rather than give the father contact.
It remains to be seen whether the court will be prepared to send her to prison if she disobeys the Court of Appeal.
As far as allegations of sexual abuse go, the county court judges who hear most of these cases are too willing to believe and support social workers who have been given powers by Parliament beyond their abilities. If the County Court treated social workers', paediatricians', and psychologists' evidence as sceptically as that of policemen, fathers would get far better treatment from the courts.
The main problem is that judges are used to finding according to the evidence: most of the medical evidence is obtained by social workers who pay a psychologist to parrot the current theories, whilst ordinary litigants on legal aid cannot easily obtain any counter-evidence because it is too expensive, or no expert can be found with the courage to challenge the common prej- udices of his profession.
There are too few psychologists or psy- chiatrists who are pro-family and anti-state.
Philip Walling
Trinity Chambers, 9-12 Trinity Chare, Quayside, Newcastle upon Tyne
Previous page
