English judge overrules both parent and child

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2017/48.html

English judge publishes ruling in which he determines the interests of a child, aged 14, and not only rules against a parent, but also against what the child asked for, while explaining his reasoning.

Worth a proper read - genuinely. Not a wind up.

If you don't want to read this article, which is not brief, then it is unlikely you will contribute anything interesting to a discussion of it. Good news - it will not require a reading age above 14!

However, it provides a different perspective about circumstances in which the courts should or should not be bound by the wishes of parents regarding the welfare of a child.

For those who reject a role for the courts, it invites them to explain why not and what alternative they would advocate.

For those who object that English courts prioritise the rights of the child, not those of the parents, this ruling should at least make them hesitate; anyway, it invites them to explain how that works when parents disagree and at least one is unreasonable and even objectionable.

Well in public schools in the states, children are not allowed to have so much as an aspirin from the school nurse without the consent of the parents, but they can be driven to have an abortion without the parents knowing.

In fact, that happened to a parent in the States. His daughter had an abortion with school help and the child later hemorrhaged and died, all without his consent or knowledge,. Of course, he had no legal recourse and was told just to deal.

Sounds about right.

Originally posted by @whodey
Well in public schools in the states, children are not allowed to have so much as an aspirin from the school nurse without the consent of the parents, but they

If you don't want to read this article, which is not brief, then it is unlikely you will contribute anything interesting to a discussion of it. Good news - it will not require a reading age above 14!

Originally posted by @finnegan
If you don't want to read this article, which is not brief, then it is unlikely you will contribute anything interesting to a discussion of it. Good news - it will not require a reading age above 14!

Sorry. I rarely sing the praises of the all knowing and all powerful state, (may peace be upon them), so yea, I have nothing to contribute that you ant to hear.

My bad.

Cool judge.

Originally posted by @finnegan
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2017/48.html

English judge publishes ruling in which he determines the interests of a child, aged 14, and not only rules against a parent, but also against what the child asked for, while explaining his reasoning.

Worth a proper read - genuinely. Not a wind up.

If you don't want to read this article, whi ...[text shortened]... in how that works when parents disagree and at least one is unreasonable and even objectionable.

This was a case where two parents disagreed about custody of a child. Of course, that has to be resolved by the courts, so what your point is is rather obscure.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
This was a case where two parents disagreed about custody of a child. Of course, that has to be resolved by the courts, so what your point is is rather obscure.

My point is that the court played an important role in determining the interests of the child, and the child's interests were the guiding priority for decision making. Nothing difficult or obscure about that.

Also a very pleasing and interesting judgement, worth making available for its own sake, don't you agree? A credit to the court system.

Originally posted by @finnegan
My point is that the court played an important role in determining the interests of the child, and the child's interests were the guiding priority for decision making. Nothing difficult or obscure about that.

Also a very pleasing and interesting judgement, worth making available for its own sake, don't you agree? A credit to the court system.

I'm not as impressed as you are. To say in one paragraph:

I was impressed with the way you gave evidence. You are of an age where your views carry a lot of weight with me, and I consider them in the light of your understanding of what has made things as they are. As to that, I don't think anyone of your age in your situation could understand it better than you do, but nor could they fully understand the influences that you are under and the effect that has on you.

And then two paragraphs later say:

So I respect your views, but I don't take them at face value because I think they are significantly formed by your loyalty to your father;

is contradictory. The whole letter seems to show a lot of hostility towards the father which seems to have heavily influenced the Judge. In the end, he disregarded the kid's wishes entirely and even lessened visitation for ill-explained reasons.

So the court's main determination was that the kid was better off seeing a lot less of his father than the kid wanted. Hard to see how that is so wonderful that the judge deserves a big feather in his powdered wig.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
I'm not as impressed as you are. To say in one paragraph:

I was impressed with the way you gave evidence. You are of an age where your views carry a lot of weight with me, and I consider them in the light of your understanding of what has made things as they are. As to that, I don't think anyone of your age in your situation could understand it bette ...[text shortened]... Hard to see how that is so wonderful that the judge deserves a big feather in his powdered wig.

Of course the two paragraphs are contradictory. That is the point!! It is perfectly reasonable to say - I hear your argument - which is as follows - and I respect your point of view but I respectfully disagree with you for the following reasons.

It seems to me that the judge used understatement to spare the feelings of the boy while pointing out serious deficiencies in the father's supposed plan to move to Scandinavia. Face facts - it was not an adult plan at all. It was infantile to come to court unable to explain how he expected the move to work out, while offering no justification for taking the child away from his mother, his school and his social envronment. Your inability to grasp how devastating these criticisms really are is at best weird.

He also indicated that the father had been hostile to the court, and uncooperative with the mother, making it difficult to establish acceptable, stable arrangements for the son. In short, the judge gave good reasons to consider the father a poor influence and an irresponsible parent. Calling that 'hostility' is a bit trite. The judge is there to make decisions and to form judgements. When he finds against the father then I supppose that makes him 'hostile' but for heaven's sake that is how legal judgements work.

Bear in mind that, in the background of the judgement is the associated finding that the mother is considered a responsible and good parent, making good and adult arrangements for her son, and meriting greater support. It often happens that the parent with custody gets to handle the difficult stuff, while the absent parent gets to indulge in sentimental twaddle without taking responsibility. Certainly this is happening here.

Anyway, if there is a feather in the judge's cap it is because set out his judgement in terms appropriate to the child reading it rather than adult, legal jargon, while giving the father some home truths to go way and ponder. He told the father to stop messing about and take his role more seriously.

It is amusing to observe how determined you are to find fault in a story that flatly refutes so many of your stated opinions. Truth hurts.

Originally posted by @finnegan
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2017/48.html

English judge publishes ruling in which he determines the interests of a child, aged 14, and not only rules against a parent, but also against what the child asked for, while explaining his reasoning.

Worth a proper read - genuinely. Not a wind up.

If you don't want to read this article, whi ...[text shortened]... in how that works when parents disagree and at least one is unreasonable and even objectionable.

The judge seems quite heavy-handed and opinionated. I'd expect judicial opinions to be more based on binding legal authority and standards and less based on his personal opinions. His need to try to convince the child to agree with him is bizarre ("can I suggest that you do your own thinking and don't let his views drown out yours?" is most un-judge-like; it's his job to apply the law, not to make sure everyone agrees with him).

Sure, when 2 parents argue, the judge has to resolve the dispute. But the arrogance oozing from this opinion makes him sound more like a psychologist than a judge.

whether he knows it or not, your father has a manipulative side. I don't believe he has any real idea whether he will go to Scandinavia or not, so nor do I. I can see that for him personally, Scandinavia may have some attractions, but I don't believe he will find it at all easy to stop seeing you.

Wow. You're not supposed to put self-serving mind-reading psychoanalysis in a judicial opinion.

Worst of all, the final courtroom scene in My Cousin Vinny was absurdly contrived to the point of being cartoonish. So, the erstwhile ditz turns out to be the world's foremost old car expert. Yeah. That's a totally logical and realistic ending.

Originally posted by @sh76
The judge seems quite heavy-handed and opinionated. I'd expect judicial opinions to be more based on binding legal authority and standards and less based on his personal opinions. His need to try to convince the child to agree with him is bizarre ("can I suggest that you do your own thinking and don't let his views drown out yours?" is most un-judge-like; it's ...[text shortened]... to be the world's foremost old car expert. Yeah. That's a totally logical and realistic ending.

Well that's an interesting response. Very different worlds it seems.

Originally posted by @finnegan
Well that's an interesting response. Very different worlds it seems.

Well the argument is a bit moot now that the baby died. It will spur debate on the subject though.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Well the argument is a bit moot now that the baby died. It will spur debate on the subject though.

No dead babies in this thread. Not one.

Originally posted by @sh76
The judge seems quite heavy-handed and opinionated. I'd expect judicial opinions to be more based on binding legal authority and standards and less based on his personal opinions. His need to try to convince the child to agree with him is bizarre ("can I suggest that you do your own thinking and don't let his views drown out yours?" is most un-judge-like; it's ...[text shortened]... to be the world's foremost old car expert. Yeah. That's a totally logical and realistic ending.

I'd expect judicial opinions to be more based on binding legal authority and standards and less based on his personal opinions.

https://www.facebook.com/seen.everything/videos/1261806133923921/

Originally posted by @finnegan

I'd expect judicial opinions to be more based on binding legal authority and standards and less based on his personal opinions.

https://www.facebook.com/seen.everything/videos/1261806133923921/

Yes, I've seen that guy in many clips. He's a traffic court judge. The stakes in his cases are extremely low. Whether someone is going to be fined $100 is not in the same conversation as whether a man will get to see his children.

If that judge treated, say, felony trials as he treats traffic tickets, it would be unethical.