Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Parental Alienation - Expert Witness Course - Professor Harry Zeitlin

This paper considers a common problem in access/contact disputes: false allegations and parental alienation

Professor Harry Zeitlin, BSc, MPhil, MD, FRCP, FRC Psych

Emeritus Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry UCL/University of London, expert witness to the courts since 1974

This paper was given at the Expert Witness Course, 1 November 2007, RSM.

Attachment
Parental Alienation - Expert Witness Course - Harry Zeitlin


The Problem

The rate of parental separation or divorce is high in the UK. Official figures indicate that recently divorce rates have been declining but that the rate of marriages has also declined, while co-habitations have been on the rise. The effect is an increase of less secure partnerships with more separations. In some UK counties it is thought that this is about 50%.

Partners may cease to be partners but once a parent always a parent and so the courts are faced with the subsequent battles over custody and contact.

This paper considers a common problem in contact (or access, in the USA) disputes.

It is usually the father, though there are some mothers, who is the "absent" parent. In brief following separation the following events are alas common:

a) allegations by the mother of abuse of the child,

b) the mother says she fears that the father will remove the child, and

c) increasing antipathy in the child towards the absent parent. This is commonly followed by litigation that goes on "for ever".

General Issues

Such cases consume considerable court time and money. Even with the change in regulations many are still paid from legal aid. Is there net benefit to the child? There is very little research on long term outcome and the varying opinions. Is the child's increasing fearfulness of the absent parent purely malice on the part of the "resident" parent who should therefore be punished? That appears implicit in the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome, a term coined by the late Dr Gardner, but there is inadequate research. Is there avoidable harm done to the child? There is evidence that involvement in a parental dispute does harm but again long term outcome research is still needed.

This paper does not address these issues but proposes a model of understanding that can help move away from an adversarial process.

The Scenario

A woman finds a partner - at last? She may have a mother who said that she ought to get married but also makes demands. The partner turns out not to be what she expected. He does not understand what she has to do. He is insensitive. He does not help. He gets angry. She loathes him. They separate. How does a woman handle this? Agree with her mum - good riddance anyway she never liked him. Have nothing to do with him any more? Get rid of any trace of him? But she had a child by him. The following is a common pattern - there are variations.
 
The Pattern

- Parents separate.

- Child remains in the care of the mother (occasionally the situation is reversed).

- Mother initially allows contact.

- Mother begins to resist contact - child unwell/other activities etc.

- Allegation of abuse - this is usually reported by the mother as having been said by the child.

- Mother may get support from an agency, e.g. Social Services.

- Mother refuses contact.

- Child begins to refuse to go to contact.

- Father goes to court.

- Court makes a finding of no abuse.

- Mother refuses to allow contact. Mother says that abuse will take place even if contact is closely supervised. Mother's care of the child is otherwise appropriate.

Research evidence suggests that in general allegations of abuse are valid in about 70% of cases. Against the background of acrimonious parental dispute the rate is lower, 45%, possibly less (e.g. Schetky 1986). That was also the rate from my own cases, though recently it is lower.

The court could:

a) remove the child from mother where there is no other indication to do so;

b) fine or imprison mother; and/or

c) permit this to be the only situation in which a citizen is allowed to overrule a decision of the court.

Case Examples

The nature of the mother's allegations can be difficult to understand.

Case A: Mother said that father had abused the child - whilst driving using his right hand on one occasion.

Case B: Mother said that she had visited the father's flat and there had been a curly hair on his bed. That proved to her that abuse had taken place. After a finding of no abuse at the court hearing, she went home, packed a bag and left the country with the children, leaving nearly everything else.

Case C: Mother alleged that father had corrupted the child by a 15 second whisper during contact. She said that abuse would take place even whilst a psychiatrist was present.

Case D: Mother said that father was involved in ritual abuse. When Social Services were cautious she said that they were involved too. She said the same of the church, and the judge.

Case E: Mother alleged that the child had been abducted from her locked home, abused and returned - repeatedly, whilst she was asleep.

Basic Features

Central to nearly all such cases:

1. Mother states abuse of the child by father.

2. Mother fears that father will remove the child.

3. Mother feels that father wants the pleasure of contact but not the burden of caring for and raising the child.

Point (1) relates only to cases where there is not evidence for abuse, the allegation is "illogical" and not open to argument. (2) and (3) are contradictory.

What is striking in all these cases is that the mother's views are firmly held, illogical, not open to reasonable argument; the mother has no history of mental illness, the mother's view is rigid in content; there is no evidence for thought disorder and mother functions well otherwise, e.g. at work and running the home.

What Is the Nature of the Mother's Phenomena?

Various suggestions have been made including

Delusion: Those delusions which go back to primary pathological experiences and which demand for their explanation a change in personality.

Delusion-like ideas: These emerge comprehensively from other psychic events and can be traced back psychologically to certain affects, drives, desires and fears.

Overvalued ideas: Those convictions that are strongly toned by affect which is understandable in terms of the personality and its history.

Possibly the second category is the closest fit.

Father's Behaviour

Father's behaviour also shows certain patterns including:

- denial of any responsibility for the problem;

- a demand for justice;

- seeking to control and viewing all changes as having to be made by the mother - at times the behaviour of the fathers may also be bizarre, such as climbing on motorway gantries.

Child's Behaviour

The pattern for the children's behaviour is more variable but commonly may be as follows:

At first the child seems happy with contact. There is then expression of anger at the father when they are not together, though observed behaviour at contact suggests no problem in the relationship. There is next unwillingness to go to contact when asked if he/she wants to.

Contact is stopped with the mother stating that it is at the wish of the child or that she fears that the child is being abused or will be. The child's fearfulness then appears to escalate out of proportion to any event that has been observed. The child may fear any contact and destroys presents, or fears that "he hides in the bushes outside school". It is not uncommon for the child to say that the father will pounce and take them away. The father is "demonised".

A Model of Understanding

Some children may have been abused, in some cases the mother or father may have psychiatric illness, but this pattern refers to those cases where the behaviour of all three appears not to be understandable on the overt facts of the case. Irrational statements and feelings cannot be argued and the pressure of arguing the rights and wrong of each serves to strengthen the psychological resistance.

The purpose here is to consider psychological mechanisms that are understandable and that give an understandable basis for these powerful feelings having been generated. If that is accepted then it should be possible to move away from a fixed adversarial position, and is in practice.

The question is why adults who show no mental illness, and who are otherwise reasonable people, act illogically to the severe disadvantage of a child whom they otherwise dearly love.

Proposed Mechanism

Psychological Factors in the Mother

a. Fear that the Father Will Take the Child

Mother feels abused and damaged by the relationship with her ex-partner and would like to get rid of every trace of him. However, to do that she would have to get rid of the child and that is unthinkable. The father is responsible for this feeling and the mother's fear is projected to one of the father wanting to remove the child.

In reality, the father may threaten to seek residence. There is also a possibility that the father may take the child by stealing the child's affection from her.

b. Fear of Abuse of the Child

Mother feels abused and damaged by the relationship with her ex-partner. She cannot be entirely rid of the abusive relationship because of the child, particularly if contact continues.

She continues to feel abused because of the child. The child is in this way responsible now for her continuing to feel abused. That too is unthinkable. The mother's feeling of being abused again is transferred to the father - he is abusing or will abuse the child.

In reality, the child is only in this position because he is the father. He is abusing the child simply by being the father and putting the child in this invidious position.

There is usually a reason for the mother to have felt abused or damaged by the father from either actual or perceived behaviour by the father during the relationship.

Psychological Factors in the Father

Fathers show resentment against the allegations (which may be understandable), resistance to considering their own part in the genesis of the problem, a lack of understanding about the reasons for the partnership breakdown (perhaps with defensive anger), feelings of powerlessness and of wanting to regain control, and rigidity in approach, and often make threats and counter allegations. There is also a curious distortion of reality. What makes men climb palaces dressed as Batman?

Psychological Factors in the Child

a. "Parental Alienation Syndrome" (So-Called)

Gardner (1998) described the child's animosity as follows:

"The parental alienation syndrome (PAS) is a disorder that arises almost exclusively in the context of child-custody disputes. It is a disorder in which children, programmed by the allegedly 'loved' parent, embark upon a campaign of denigration of the allegedly 'hated' parent. The children exhibit little if any ambivalence over their hatred, which often spreads to the extended family of the allegedly despised parent."

This puts the primary purpose of the psychological process as one of denigration and the resolution is given very much as one of enforcement. Gardner (1998) said that most resolve when there is real threat of enforcement of penalty, especially removal of the child to the other parent.

Enforcement included a court appointed therapist plus sanctions which might be to post a bond, pay a fine, community service, probation, house arrest, and incarceration. In severe cases there would be transfer of custody to the alienated parent. His follow-up period was three years but was not detailed. There is little known about the long term outcome. What the effect is on an already anxious and insecure child is unknown.

b. Alternative Explanation

The child's apparent reaction to the father is out of proportion to any observed event and often in contrast to the interaction at previous contacts. An alternative explanation to intentional vilification is offered.

The child has two parents who are totally opposed to the other. The child cannot adopt the stance of both and be loyal to both, though each parent may require loyalty to their own perspective. Stereotyped choice of one side gives resolution to a very high anxiety situation.

There are more cues from the home parent. However the choice is not made on reality based information and the child has no yard stick on which to judge the fear and hostility. The statements of fear relate more to the child's fantasy, reinforced by the mother and her family.

An added complication is that this also gives empowerment to the child's infantile anger.

Figure 1: Psychological Factors in The Child - An Impossible Choice

Mother                                 Father

I love my father.                    I love my mother.
My father hates my mother.     My mother hates my father.
So I must hate my mother.      So I must hate my father.

STEREOTYPED ADHERENCE TO ONE SIDE IS A IS A RESOLUTION TO ANXIETY NOT DENIGRATION

Attachment
Figure 1: Psychological Factors in the Child - An impossible Choice
505 views (57 KB)


Resolution Based on Understanding

The above model offers an explanation of the conflict based on an understanding of the reasons for feelings and statements that are otherwise not rational on the overt evidence. Once the impossible dilemmas for the mother and the child are taken into account it becomes understandable without invoking psychosis or malice. The father's frustration at trying to justify himself against an apparent irrationality has also to be taken into account. The previous conflict cannot be argued rationally and results at times in equally irrational behaviour to deal with it.

Clinical Work

The clinical work is based firstly on an examination of the model by each parent. This gives a non-conflictual rational basis for each parent to examine their own behaviour. Feedback on an individual case basis is that all of them accept that the presence of a child has prevented them from moving on from what has been eventually a painful relationship. Most agree that they have then had powerful, distressing feelings as a result.

It must be clear that the process work is non-adversarial and non-confrontational. It does not seek to attach blame to one or the other. Both parents need to accept that neither will be proven right or wrong. Parents should be told outright that they will damage their child if they continue to involve him/her in their battle. Failing to work on the problem would be knowingly going against the child' best interests. Both parents should be told that there are understandable reasons for their strongly held views. The parents may be distressed when faced with the reality and be helped by individual work to resolve conflicts to own feelings.

Mother

- Mother has to be prepared to consider the possibility of contact.

- Mother has to consider separating her interests from those of the child.

- Mother has to undertake not to take the child into hiding.

- Mother has to accept considering the fears of the father.

- Above all the mother has to be prepared to work on the problem and consider possible reasons for the strength of her feelings.

Father

- Father has to accept an asymmetrical relationship compared with mother.

- Father has to be prepared to accept that being a father will impact on his life apart from just having contact. (Contact may be getting the child to a ballet class.)

- Father has to consider separating his interests from those of the child.

- Father has to be "proactive" in addressing the fears of the mother whether or not he feels they are valid.

- Fear of abuse: father to be "proactive" in demonstrating openness and offer (rather than resist) supervision if that is relevant.

- Fear of removal: father should affirm that he does not intend to try to remove the child from mother

- Above all, father has to be prepared to work on the problem and consider possible reasons for the strength of both his and the mother's feelings

In Practice

All sessions alternate between parents, preferably taking place on different days. Otherwise there is a risk of a fight in the waiting room and there will be no point in proceeding.

In the first session with each parent the model of understanding is examined for its relevance to their own position and whether it is possible to consider progress to a mutually agreed contact if their concerns are addressed. If neither parent would see the latter as possible then there is no value in continuing and the process has to revert to the court.

If change seems possible then the sessions alternate between the parents. Usually adequate progress can be made with three or four sessions each. During these sessions each parent is asked to state his or her own fears and what might address them. They are then asked to state what they feel would be the fears of the other parent and whether justified or not what they could offer to address those fears. The parents usually find great difficulty in considering that the other parent has any reason to have concerns. Once through that it is surprising how ingenious some parents can be in coming up with solutions. Many will seek a means of supervision that is acceptable to themselves. Permission is then sought to take the list from each parent to the other and each is asked to offer a means of addressing those irrespective of

whether they feel the fear to be justified.

The two final lists are usually remarkably similar and whilst the parents usually do accept this most need time to come to terms with it. For a few parents it is then possible to have a joint session to consolidate the joint plan.

Nothing is done to involve the child until the child can be told that the parents have agreed a plan. One session with the "resident" parent and the child can be used for that parent to endorse the fact that there is an agreement, that it is safe, that the child is free to feel towards the other parent as he/she wishes without disloyalty and that the parent wants the child to have a satisfactory relationship with the other parent.

The non-resident parent is asked to agree to an agenda for the first meeting with the child. Much of that reflects the content of the session with the resident parent and child. It is helpful to be present at that session irrespective of whether there is an agreement for supervision of contact.

Is Such Theory Amenable to Testing and If So How?

The proposed model may be used to help unlock battles that are potentially very damaging to children and that are essentially unresolvable by argument through the courts. Even if this explanation is correct there are aspects that need considerable exploration. There are other patterns that are similar but not the same as the ones described above. Some involve mother/child relationships that are close but where the mother cannot find any pleasure in her child.

There are cases where the child is in the care of the father and gender differences in psychological processes may be relevant. Females are more able to allow intrusion of another into personal identity, a factor important in raising infants. Women are more emotionally involved in relationships, the child is more part of "self". The mother has more distortion of personal space to raise child. How does intergenerational enmeshment enter into this and is there a difference for male or female children?

Unfortunately research in this area is very limited, partly because of the difficulty in accessing a suitable cohort where confidentiality of court processes and documents are concerned.

Better routine profiling of families where this occurs would help and there is an urgent need for good long term outcome evaluation of children who have been subjected to this. That is difficult but possible and the author is currently organising funds for this purpose. Key questions for long term outcome include that of the child's relationship to each parent and whether the person is damaged, particularly with regard to mental health, ability to relate and to self image. What is it like to be the child of a demonised parent when you are not sure of the reason for it?

The impression so far is that successful resolution can be achieved in about 50% of cases, possibly more. That proposition needs to be tested.

References

Awad, G A. McDonough, H. Therapeutic management of sexual abuse allegations in custody and visitation disputes. American Journal of Psychotherapy. 45(1):113-23, 1991 Jan.

Awad, G A. The assessment of custody and access disputes in cases of sexual abuse allegations Canadian Journal of Psychiatry - Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie. 32(7):539-44, 1987 Oct. Mainly looking at probability of abuse and its assessment.

Cole, W A. Bradford M. J, Abduction during custody and access disputes. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry - Revue Canadienne de Psychiatrie. 37(4):264-6, 1992 May

Derdeyn, A P. Poehailos, A. Seigle, E. 1994. Adequate evaluation of divorce-related child sexual abuse allegations. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law. 22(2):279-87, 1994. Investigations "predisposed to finding abuse" - in divorce cases.

Emery, R E. Laumann-Billings, L. Waldron, M C. Sbarra, D A. Dillon, P. 2001. Child custody mediation and litigation: custody, contact, and co-parenting 12 years after initial dispute resolution. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology. 69(2):323-32, 2001 Apr. Mediation better than litigation - better outcome for fathers, no difference for mothers.

Fabricius, William V, Luecken, Linda J. Postdivorce living arrangements, parent conflict, and long-term physical health correlates for children of divorce. Journal of Family Psychology. 21(2):195-205, 2007 Jun. University students: the more time children spent with fathers after divorce, the better current relationships with fathers, independent of parent conflict. The more parental conflict they experienced, the worse their relationships were with their fathers and the more distress they currently felt about their parents' divorce, independent of time with father. Poor father-child relationships and more distress in turn predicted poorer health status.

Gardner R A. 1998. Recommendations for Dealing with Parents who Induce a Parental Alienation Syndrome in their Children. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage, Vol 28 (3/4), pp. 1-21.

Green, Arthur H. 1986. True and false allegations of abuse in child custody disputes. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, Vol 25, No. 4, p. 449-456.

Le Bourdais, Celine. Juby, Heather. Marcil-Gratton, Nicole. 2002. Keeping in touch with children after separation: the point of view of fathers. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. (4 Suppl):109-30, 2002. "The amount of father-child contact after separation is closely linked to the probability that father fulfil their financial obligations towards their children."

Palmer, Sally E. 2002. Custody and access issues with children whose parents are separated or divorced. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health. (4 Suppl):25-38, 2002. "And finally, recommendations are made to minimize the detrimental effects of family breakup on children: (a) allowing children choice and flexibility, (b) exploring the benefits of mediation for families, © promoting parental co-operation, and (d) encouraging an ongoing relationship with the non-residential parent."

Penfold. 1995. Mendacious moms or devious dads? Some perplexing issues in child custody/sexual abuse allegation disputes. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry Canadienne de Psychiatrie. 40(6):337-41, 1995 Aug.

Schetky, D H. 1986. Emerging issues in child sexual abuse. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry. 25(4):490-2, 1986 Jul.

Schetky, D H, and Benedik, E P. 1985. Emerging issues in child psychiatry and the law. Brunner/Mazel, New York.

Trocme, Nico. Bala, Nicholas. False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate. Child Abuse & Neglect. 29(12):1333-45, 2005 Dec. Includes counter allegations "more than one-third of maltreatment investigations are unsubstantiated, but only 4% of all cases are considered to be intentionally fabricated. Within the subsample of cases wherein a custody or access dispute has occurred, the rate of intentionally false allegations is higher: 12%. Results of this analysis show that neglect is the most common form of intentionally fabricated maltreatment, while anonymous reporters and non-custodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently make intentionally false reports."

There is Another Little Point

Often children believe the absent parent does not wish to see them.

Often the child will seek ways to punish the absent parent for not "Loving" them.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
I believe the bulk of the statements in the download are bang on the money. What a well written and explanatory article.

I do take exception to this statement:
resistance to considering their own part in the genesis of the problem, a lack of understanding about the reasons for the partnership breakdown (perhaps with defensive anger), feelings of powerlessness and of wanting to regain control, and rigidity in approach, and often make threats and counter allegations. There is also a curious distortion of reality. What makes men climb palaces dressed as Batman?
I have known a couple of alienated men. My assessment of them is that they have been trained to be passive - years of walking on eggshells from an emotionally turbulent life with the ex. This seems to morph into passive aggressiveness after the breakup, which feeds the situation. Difficulties can be minimised with an assertive stance.

Initially, though there will be a cycle of punishment, especially if the court system do not follow up with contact for the father - the mother will feel vindicated.

Assertiveness is very different from aggression. Sadly, most of these men have just disengaged from their children, hoping that the kids will re-unite with them when they are older. I don't think this will be the case.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 

The children will re-engage later?

"The children will re-engage later?"

Sadly, this is commonly the advice given by experts to the absent parent. It is not usually accompanied by a full explanation. Yes a child wondering about the absent parent is common, even seeking out the absent parent happens often. Often though is take the patience of Job and an immense amount of determination of the part of both parent and child.

Of further concern, is that the information in the Professors experience represents the absolutely most difficult cases. The rest of us are trying to make it work. So we get caught up in two concepts.

1. "In the shadow of the Law", meaning the type of decisions courts typically make, and

2. "In the shadow of research" which seeks to inform the court about averages.  Social research is littered with abandoned ideas which at one stage were considered a Scientific Fact.

For me - Shared Parenting is a Reality - Maybe it can be for you too!
A good article.

I agree with Artemis appraisal.

In my case the ex walked out, taking the kids, to pursue relationship with a friend of mine. A month after she left, and after I insisted on 50/50 contact (that's what the kids wanted!), I received a phone call from DHS (Victorian version of DOCS), Child Protective Services saying that the mother has bought the daughter in with allegations of child abuse by me. After I was interviewed by them they dismissed the whole thing with some professional advice to "protect myself" from the mother!

When I insisted on having consent orders drawn up with 50/50 contact put through the same scenario again in the family court. However, as with DHS, the allegations were either dismissed or dropped and now 2 years later I have a great relationship with all my children … not such a good one with the ex … and life goes on!
Artemis said
I have known a couple of alienated men. My assessment of them is that they have been trained to be passive - years of walking on eggshells from an emotionally turbulent life with the ex. This seems to morph into passive aggressiveness after the breakup, which feeds the situation. Difficulties can be minimised with an assertive stance.
I agree - most men are quite non-assertive about fundamental issues in relationships, courts and so on.

There is a lot of pressure on men not to state what they think - not only from the women they are with - but from men who find the concepts too confronting; those who like to think of themselves as politically correct and others.

It's my experience that while many women have gained skills to quite openly discuss many matters about relations - like money, children, sex, love, (not in any particular order) - many men seem to not only have much less skill but also a lack of interest.

The training you refer to also comes about by some women using their emotional reactions and their being little consequence for that. Men feel they cannot respond - for fear of stirring the pot or inflaming the situation. Some people simply cannot talk about things without becoming highly emotional and some people feel powerless when confronted by that. A lack of response then is taken as agreement. And so the lack of communication goes on.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
A lack of response then is taken as agreement. And so the lack of communication goes on.

It's so spooky when I agree with you Jon! Never a truer word spoken.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Sense can come from unusual places :)  (not scary places)

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough

Risk Assessment Protocol to Evaluate the Risk of Harm to Children by Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP)

Hi there.

I came across the attached document recently and I am not sure if I should introduce it into my upcoming LAT hearing.

The document is entitled "Risk Assessment Protocol to evaluate the risk of harm to children by Hostile-Agressive Parenting (HAP) - and is just that.

I completed the questionarie and it seems - based on this criteria - that my daughter is at moderate to high risk as a result of the Mother and the Maternal Grandparent behaviour. Feedback welcome.

Attachment
Hostile Aggressive Parenting (HAP) Risk Assessment


4MYDAUGHTER
The word used in Australian courts is "Alignment" not alienation.

I would be very careful about using this sort of protocol as it is not accepted or recognised here. What I would do is mention the concern you have over various behaviours.

My partner's case has the same issue as yours - the difficulty of presenting alienation, or a risk of alienation to the magistrage, or judge.

What we have been told by legal advice is that your job is not to make determinations, but to present the information so that the judge or FM can make those determinations.

If you are at the beginning of this process, and not had a family report, it is important to push for a family report and try to get the consultant to see the emotional abuse that is the precursor to PAS and HAP.

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Hi Artemis, thank for the feedback.

Yes - I gathered that 'Alienation' is in 'disrepute'.

Justice Bell commented made some comment in J & B Fam CA 184.

I wasn't really planning on using it. Where the Protocol  helped me was to give me some sense of where the Mothers behavior falls within the range of the Alienation spectrum.

Cheers.

Last edit: by 4mydaughter


4MYDAUGHTER
Hello, I'm new here and just stumbled on this post, and it describes EXACTLY what is currently happening to me.

In summary:

I am currently being vexatiously accused of sexual abuse of my 2-year-old daughter, by her mother and maternal grandmother. The matter has been investigated by DoCS and found to be unsubstantiated. The mother is still refusing even supervised contact and it has now been three months since I saw my girl.  The mother has also taken out an AVO against me and says she is "fearful" of me. I am not a violent person in any way and the only history of DV in our relationship was initiated by her.

My 'urgent' hearing in the Federal Magistrates Court in April simply referred it on to the Family Court and I as yet have no date for hearing. I was shocked to learn that Legal Aid will not fund ANY contravention applications. I have incurred a debt of around $8000 to my lawyer and haven't even been heard in court yet or seen my daughter for three months now.

I would appreciate any advice or if you could refer me to anybody who might be able to help me restore contact with my little girl as soon as possible and refute these vexatious allegations against me.


Now for some reason I feel like climbing a palace…
Are you the guy who recently contacted a barrister? If so, I have been informed about your problem(s). I will contact you directly through your email.

Monti

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on the site (Look for the Avatars).   Be mindful what you post in the public areas. 
1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets