I want the parental responsibility for my child on medical grounds. I am currently the only person who can sign for him in an emergency. He is in Ireland. I am not there.
The Foca wants the parental responsibility agreement because the piece of paper will make him "feel like a father". Without it he is "failing as a father."
Never, never once has he sited the reason he needs it for our child.
Years ago a solicitor told me he could get parental responsibility without my agreement. She'd said then that he would have to pay for it.
My signature is free.
Why he wants it now, when I'm expected a bailiff's order is because he wants to hurt me.
There are men like that. Not all men are like that.
Showing posts with label Family courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Family courts. Show all posts
Friday, 6 August 2010
Family Law
Went to see a solicitor yesterday regarding this court order from the Foca. I told her I didn't want to attend.
She said I didn't have to if I consented, I'd just have to sign the paper. If I didn't consent I would need to attend, to state my case.
It's tricky though you see.
I absolutely consent signing the parental responsibility agreement for my child.
I absolutely do not consent signing it for the Foca.
She said that later I could apply for residency if he started posing problems.
I still don't want to go, I said. It's not a good time.
She told me to write a letter.
I came out of the solicitor's office and tears rolled out my eyes in streams, my eyes wide open and clear. As though my bones were weeping releasing pain, the sorrow at source. I resisted drinking myself for I didn't taste salty or acidic.
I wrote the first draft. It's really difficult.
She said I didn't have to if I consented, I'd just have to sign the paper. If I didn't consent I would need to attend, to state my case.
It's tricky though you see.
I absolutely consent signing the parental responsibility agreement for my child.
I absolutely do not consent signing it for the Foca.
She said that later I could apply for residency if he started posing problems.
I still don't want to go, I said. It's not a good time.
She told me to write a letter.
I came out of the solicitor's office and tears rolled out my eyes in streams, my eyes wide open and clear. As though my bones were weeping releasing pain, the sorrow at source. I resisted drinking myself for I didn't taste salty or acidic.
I wrote the first draft. It's really difficult.
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Infantisiling children
In March I sent a letter to the Council Chief and got a reply from 'needs and access director' yesterday.
I asked why the council insisted that I allow my son to share my bed or alternatively keep moving him from one accommodation to another.
"With reference to your son sharing your bed at your temporary accommodation, this is obviously not a long term solution (five years and counting!) and we would be happy to provide you with alternative temporary accommodation." (Happy that you keep bouncing him around disrupting his education in other words)
I hug my son all the time. My son hugs me. After breakfast and before bedtime he'll clamber on to me. Hug hug hug. Hug hug hug hug hug.
I hope he'll hug me when he's 60, I hope he will when he's 16. He's six and won't do it in public. An astute child.
A couple of years ago I read a newspaper feature by a male psychologist about how mothers who love their children 'too much' are damaging them.
Chuck me in jail, go on. Give my son "a break"
All those hostel mammas, chuck them in jail. Oh, that's where they are....
I'm pleased the Times printed the injustice on Sunday. I want to find that mother's youtube video....
Courts and councils have to be accountable for what they do in some cases.
It's ironic Channel 4 are broadcasting "Forgotten Children" this week.
Will they find and broadcast her youtube video?
I asked why the council insisted that I allow my son to share my bed or alternatively keep moving him from one accommodation to another.
"With reference to your son sharing your bed at your temporary accommodation, this is obviously not a long term solution (five years and counting!) and we would be happy to provide you with alternative temporary accommodation." (Happy that you keep bouncing him around disrupting his education in other words)
I hug my son all the time. My son hugs me. After breakfast and before bedtime he'll clamber on to me. Hug hug hug. Hug hug hug hug hug.
I hope he'll hug me when he's 60, I hope he will when he's 16. He's six and won't do it in public. An astute child.
A couple of years ago I read a newspaper feature by a male psychologist about how mothers who love their children 'too much' are damaging them.
Chuck me in jail, go on. Give my son "a break"
All those hostel mammas, chuck them in jail. Oh, that's where they are....
I'm pleased the Times printed the injustice on Sunday. I want to find that mother's youtube video....
Courts and councils have to be accountable for what they do in some cases.
It's ironic Channel 4 are broadcasting "Forgotten Children" this week.
Will they find and broadcast her youtube video?
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Mother jailed for loving her children
Quite speechless when I read this on the times online website this evening. A mother formerly married to a fat cat financier has been denied access to her three children for three years for allegedly turning her kids against their father (a social worker noted them making 'serious allegations' about the father's treatment of them when they were in their mother's care), she apparently treats them in an infantile way (hugging her three year old...) is 'indulgent' (not strict enough when seeing them for an hour a week) and was jailed two years ago for breaching a court order by approaching her eldest (9 years old) in the street and telling him she loved him.
A psychiatrist who assessed her case said the mother 'loved her children' but had harmed their development by trying to be always 'available' to them. Doesn't a child need that? To know that someone is always 'available' for them. Her children are being raised by a nanny, so daddy certainly isn't always 'available'. He's clearly very busy trying to find different things to nail mummy with.
Two text messages she sent her ex each resulted in a one-week jail sentence (in a separate article the journalist says a month. A day would be a travesty) One said: "Why are you doing this to my kids? I will do whatever you say." The other said she was 'sorry' and offered to look after the children for free instead of him employing a nanny. The judge said they were 'harrassing or pestering'. Jail? You run over a child in the street you don't get jail, but for a text message or two to your ex about your children you do?
If her ex is happy to see that happen he can't love his children at all. We're told he's applied to have her jailed again for posting a video about the case on YouTube.
According to the article, a judge conceded all the children had a "constant wish" to see their mother but another judge said she should have no contact with the boys for two years in order to "give them a break".
I wouldn't be surprised if this debacle is destroying the children. I wonder what the nanny says to them to placate them. After all, someone's got to be 'available' to them. Or no? Better to leave them out in the cold?
The whole thing beggars belief
A psychiatrist who assessed her case said the mother 'loved her children' but had harmed their development by trying to be always 'available' to them. Doesn't a child need that? To know that someone is always 'available' for them. Her children are being raised by a nanny, so daddy certainly isn't always 'available'. He's clearly very busy trying to find different things to nail mummy with.
Two text messages she sent her ex each resulted in a one-week jail sentence (in a separate article the journalist says a month. A day would be a travesty) One said: "Why are you doing this to my kids? I will do whatever you say." The other said she was 'sorry' and offered to look after the children for free instead of him employing a nanny. The judge said they were 'harrassing or pestering'. Jail? You run over a child in the street you don't get jail, but for a text message or two to your ex about your children you do?
If her ex is happy to see that happen he can't love his children at all. We're told he's applied to have her jailed again for posting a video about the case on YouTube.
According to the article, a judge conceded all the children had a "constant wish" to see their mother but another judge said she should have no contact with the boys for two years in order to "give them a break".
I wouldn't be surprised if this debacle is destroying the children. I wonder what the nanny says to them to placate them. After all, someone's got to be 'available' to them. Or no? Better to leave them out in the cold?
The whole thing beggars belief
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
