Skip to main content

FNF and the Lib Dems

Families Need Fathers (an organisation which has a number of mothers as members) has been in existance for a number of years.

There was a joint meeting between FNF and the Lib Dems yesterday at which they raised a number of questions including that of grandparents where relationships come to an end.

I have tended to concentrate on public family law, but the problems there are often similar to those in private family law and cases often overlap.

The party does not have a detailed policy in this area and perhaps we should look at doing this. However, there are some principles that I think should apply.

Firstly, as it stands the system of laws etc create an environment which encourages paople to split up. Benefits and taxes all encourage splits rather than encouraging people to remain together. A priority has to be to avoid instability.

Secondly, if people do split up there needs to be a default position which encourages both parents to cooperate in the interests of children. Far too often children are used as pawns to continue a relationship dispute. Those situations that end up best are those where parents cooperate.

Thirdly, basic rights of involvement need to exist without going to court. There should be an assumption that it is a duty for separated parents to facilitiate the other parent being involved in their child's life.

Fourthly, the three aspects of relationship breakdown that of the divorce settlement, the funding for child support and any remaining issues in respect of child care should be resolved together. The default may be a more forumulaic approach with any variations from this by agreement.

As a consequence of these principles schools and doctors should involve both parents. Obviously there will be some circumstances under which one parent should be excluded, but these circumstances should be established on the basis of evidence as a reason to move from the default position.

It is also important to ensure that people are not rewarded for false allegations.

Other issues such as the rights of grandparents are shared with public family law.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…