The mother dictating the order?

[Openlaw15]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

Where does that little gem come from?

From Weber's McDonalisation, 'McLawyer....society delegates roles whether in the UK or anywhere else - the state would prefer other staff as 'eyes and ears of the court' as the state has evolved and judges are more persuaded by others, are out of touch persons.

[Openlaw15]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

No - i am educated....educated....I do not cite Wikipedia...I cite from my own education. There was not a shred of evidence anyway that I cite from Wikipedia except a cheap shot for arbitrary's sake. No non sequitur please.

Oh well perhaps you may not find it enlightening but lots of people do, including lawyers. How can it not be enlightening that society delegates roles of responsibility for convenience sake, ie police state representatives, Cit. Advice using legal aid to pay for 'completing benefits' forms; |Law being delegated to non lawyers; DWP delegating GP roles of capacity to work' to nurses/ health-workers et al. Psych ed. delegated to post grad short course (diploma). I think this McDonaldisation is dangerous for society and why we have the problems we do. A V Dicey (public law Victorian Professor of Law) said that the role of the courts is to give intent to Parliament legislation et al, ergo if the courts are not democratic institutions in that they ought to be fair. He also said the moral dimension of the 'rule of law' is that the state should be held in check for its actions. We do not have a written constitution in the UK which means that they are no real checks and balances for state workers.

[t135t0]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

all i wanted was some positive, but honest advice lads, no need to bicker

[Openlaw15]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

all i wanted was some positive, but honest advice lads, no need to bicker

Have you ever been violent to your partner or done anything to make her think your act was violent. Have you ever spoken to her where she feels threatened in some way? Have you have lots your temper at your little daughter or believe that you have the potential to lose it with her? If you have not done any of these things then you simply are not a risk and never have been.

[Kati]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

Have you ever been violent to your partner or done anything to make her think your act was violent. Have you ever spoken to her where she feels threatened in some way? Have you have lots your temper at your little daughter or believe that you have the potential to lose it with her? If you have not done any of these things then you simply are not a risk and never have been.

All I can say here (and I'm speaking from experience) is that sometimes it doesn't matter if the person has BEEN/SHOWN violence towards their child or childs' mother ... if there is any violence (even non-personal as far as the relationship is concerned) there should be a concern!!
[MENTION=71880]t135t0[/MENTION] ... I've not read all of your thread yet, so I don't know what's gone on, but are SS involved? Has the mother stopped contact (or just threatened to)? Have you been charged by the police?

[Openlaw15]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

All I can say here (and I'm speaking from experience) is that sometimes it doesn't matter if the person has BEEN/SHOWN violence towards their child or childs' mother ... if there is any violence (even non-personal as far as the relationship is concerned) there should be a concern!!
@t135t0 ... I've not read all of your thread yet, so I don't know what's gone on, but are SS involved? Has the mother stopped contact (or just threatened to)? Have you been charged by the police?

This is the problem - the state has limited right to interrupt with the parents' rights and only when the child is at risk of 'significant harm' should the authorities involve their persons. It is not just about the best interest of the child, in free country it's the right for the parents to keep their children where they have done nothing wrong to them.

[t135t0]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

Hi Kati,

I have never actually been verbally abusive I.E said it to her or her families face, i have just said it via text message and facebook. i have also never been violent or physical towards my daughter or her mother in any way or sort, i have also never been violent or physical to any of her family, i just let me frustrations build up over a period of time and have outbursts. The outbursts have been my undoing as they come sporadically and they think if i do it to them i will do it to my daughter, which to me is absurd but thats why they are digging their heels in.

The mother has stopped contact, this is for the 4th time this year and has with this Saturday it will be 5 breaches in total.

Family services rang me two days ago and we had an in depth discussion. They rang because the police had contacted them as a child was involved in mine and the mothers bickering. I explained to them a few things but my main question was.."are you going to stop me seeing my child?".... It was a straight "no", so obviously that was a relief. They were mainly interested in how i was going to make things better and move things forward as this can only be resolved by myself and the mother.

No i have not been charged yet as my meeting with the police is due on Saturday, i am not 100% sure yet but i have a feeling i am being questioned in messages and abuse related to the mother.

Hi Openlaw15,

Yes i have done nothing wrong directly to my child but child services explained that me stressing the mother out is having in direct results and not good, but as i said to "kati", they are not blocking me seeing my child, nobody is, its just got to go back through the whole court thing as i am not going to enforce it, ill just have to do the 5 months of c100 hearings blah blah

[Openlaw15]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

Hi Kati,

I have never actually been verbally abusive I.E said it to her or her families face, i have just said it via text message and facebook. i have also never been violent or physical towards my daughter or her mother in any way or sort, i have also never been violent or physical to any of her family, i just let me frustrations build up over a period of time and have outbursts. The outbursts have been my undoing as they come sporadically and they think if i do it to them i will do it to my daughter, which to me is absurd but thats why they are digging their heels in.

The mother has stopped contact, this is for the 4th time this year and has with this Saturday it will be 5 breaches in total.

Family services rang me two days ago and we had an in depth discussion. They rang because the police had contacted them as a child was involved in mine and the mothers bickering. I explained to them a few things but my main question was.."are you going to stop me seeing my child?".... It was a straight "no", so obviously that was a relief. They were mainly interested in how i was going to make things better and move things forward as this can only be resolved by myself and the mother.

No i have not been charged yet as my meeting with the police is due on Saturday, i am not 100% sure yet but i have a feeling i am being questioned in messages and abuse related to the mother.

Hi Openlaw15,

Yes i have done nothing wrong directly to my child but child services explained that me stressing the mother out is having in direct results and not good, but as i said to "kati", they are not blocking me seeing my child, nobody is, its just got to go back through the whole court thing as i am not going to enforce it, ill just have to do the 5 months of c100 hearings blah blah

Use specific agencies, which agencies are you referring to as 'child services.' How are you apparently stressing 'mother' out, how is stress defined and what is the effect of this apparent stress on her that mother thinks she has rights to deny you access or interrupts your rights to access. Be honest with me, what have you done. If there is remotely any evidence that you have done something wrong it will be on your record and certainly will affect your ability to see your daughter.

Is this an update of your FB situ as of yet? When are you 'volunteering' your presence at the police station for the chat?

- - - Updated - - -

thank you..but if i dont attend i have been told i will be arrested

Arrested based on what? What have you done...only you know that.

- - - Updated - - -

Been on Wikipedia again I see.

I don't find Ritzers original work or Webers late analysis particularly enlightening.

Nemesis, I have studied sociology and psychology...I do not use Wikipedia as i benefit from a university education. I have never used Wikipedia as it simply not an academic source.

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest, OpenLaw15, we have on the issue of threats: so harassment or malicious communication(the legalese stuff so to speak). As it was one drunken message he might be told to stop contacting them or it might amount to harassment(that is my gut reaction.

The rest of the stuff was actually about the contact issue which is not criminal court and where the burden of proof is lower. So I am the brief for the OP's ex, and I am gonna use threats of violence to suggest he may be a danger to his child so that might lead me to argue that he should have no contact with the child. I might argue aggression, the op has stated this earlier in the thread, to suggest that he is threatening during the hand off. Tell me that the OP is an upstanding member of the community who has kept a steady job(and not walked out due him being angry with one or more aspect of a job), tell me that the OP is passive and they appear to know about the social media threat as well.

OpenLaw15, when I wrote the original comment it was intended as a kick up the backside for the OP to get their act together and prove that they were not what perhaps the mother might be saying to the child that they were. The work thing is nothing to do with the criminal aspect.

The basics a court will do is to keep contact between both parents because it is in the interests of the child but the child has appeared to indicate that they do not want to go to contact. Age and understanding will have an interplay in this. However, if the father is violent then that can in some cases lead to the court deciding that it is in the best interests of the child to cease contact with that violent parent. Are we now getting it?

You mean if the father 'were' violent...as it is just your hypothetical point.

[t135t0]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

Hi openlaw,

They just said they were child services, its who the police contact when there is a child involved when a report/complaint has been made. When i say a "child being involved" i dont mean the child was actually involved in the complaint but as myself and the mother are arguing it can affect the child and thats why they stepped in.

I have said many many times exactly what i have done wrong, i have outbursts, needless arguments, i have made threats to her brothers but never directly to her or my daughter. Again i will say there is no violence, anything sexual or anything that should legally stop contact. I have been up front and honest in this thread for 3 months as there would be no point in hiding the exact facts. No she does not have a right to deny access but she is using every loophole she possibly can at the moment, im just stupid enough to give her excuses.

I have virtually found out that i dont think its those fb messages i think its just messages i have sent to her and her family, i find out on sat. But and this is a big BUT, she let contact resume on dec 19th, 2 weeks ago, and then halted it on dec21st. So in the space of two days all contact had been cancelled and i was never allowed to see her again, in that short space of time contact had been halted abruptly and without any notice So if i hazard a guess i dont think court will take into account any abusive messages sent prior to the 19th of DEC, cos she let contact resume on the 19th..??

[Openlaw15]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

Hi openlaw,

They just said they were child services, its who the police contact when there is a child involved when a report/complaint has been made. When i say a "child being involved" i dont mean the child was actually involved in the complaint but as myself and the mother are arguing it can affect the child and thats why they stepped in.

I have said many many times exactly what i have done wrong, i have outbursts, needless arguments, i have made threats to her brothers but never directly to her or my daughter. Again i will say there is no violence, anything sexual or anything that should legally stop contact. I have been up front and honest in this thread for 3 months as there would be no point in hiding the exact facts. No she does not have a right to deny access but she is using every loophole she possibly can at the moment, im just stupid enough to give her excuses.

I have virtually found out that i dont think its those fb messages i think its just messages i have sent to her and her family, i find out on sat. But and this is a big BUT, she let contact resume on dec 19th, 2 weeks ago, and then halted it on dec21st. So in the space of two days all contact had been cancelled and i was never allowed to see her again, in that short space of time contact had been halted abruptly and without any notice So if i hazard a guess i dont think court will take into account any abusive messages sent prior to the 19th of DEC, cos she let contact resume on the 19th..??

There is no equivalent of protection orders in place right, so remind the police of this. Say you are not and never were a threat to anyone much less your daughter, and you're being in the police station at this time (when you go etc) is not in the public interest. NB: for your information: If you were to threaten someone with your fist but not actually hit the person this is deemed 'assault' but where you were to then go on to follow through with a physical action, at that point it would be assault and battery. Tell the police you may have lost your cool at times owing to family in law members provoking trouble, however you have never resorted to violence. Any allegations raised against you moreover were more acts of bravado to save face from being viewed by brother in law etc as soft touch and therein subject to any brother in-law/ other in-laws' manipulation. If you have no criminal record, you are well within your rights to say these things. You may be cautioned: 'anything your say will harm a later defence.' So, be very careful what you say. Answer the immediate question, stick to the point. Do not accept a criminal sanction such as a caution if offered one unless it really is the last resort. A caution is likely to be offered by the police if there is enough evidence for a particular criminal offence, ie if there is some evidence which would secure a conviction. It is not merely a warning as the misconception would appear to be. Good luck, hope it goes well. If you have a lawyer, follow his/ her lead.

[nemesis45]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

There is no equivalent of protection orders in place right, so remind the police of this. Say you are not and never were a threat to anyone much less your daughter, and you're being in the police station at this time (when you go etc) is not in the public interest. NB: for your information: If you were to threaten someone with your fist but not actually hit the person this is deemed 'assault' but where you were to then go on to follow through with a physical action, at that point it would be assault and battery. Tell the police you may have lost your cool at times owing to family in law members provoking trouble, however you have never resorted to violence. Any allegations raised against you moreover were more acts of bravado to save face from being viewed by brother in law etc as soft touch and therein subject to any brother in-law/ other in-laws' manipulation. If you have no criminal record, you are well within your rights to say these things. You may be cautioned: 'anything your say will harm a later defence.' So, be very careful what you say. Answer the immediate question, stick to the point. Do not accept a criminal sanction such as a caution if offered one unless it really is the last resort. A caution is likely to be offered by the police if there is enough evidence for a particular criminal offence, ie if there is some evidence which would secure a conviction. It is not merely a warning as the misconception would appear to be. Good luck, hope it goes well. If you have a lawyer, follow his/ her lead.

It is withholding any when questioned that you later rely on in court that may harm your defence.

Making threats that cause alarm and distress e.g. " I'll kill you" is an offence bravado or not.

Think very carefully when you are interviewed under caution.

nemesis45

[Openlaw15]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

It is withholding any when questioned that you later rely on in court that may harm your defence.

Making threats that cause alarm and distress e.g. " I'll kill you" is an offence bravado or not.

Think very carefully when you are interviewed under caution.

nemesis45

Lots of people say 'i'll kill you' and generally means beat you up, if anything.. it's also just used as a metaphor unless there is evidence of a genuine threat to actually intend to kill the person, all of which depends on the facts. How is the person to be killed, is it hiring a gunman (contract killing), is it a knife? Where is the intention??? What about the defence where the person changes their mind, ie there was initial intent albeit the person goes so far but at the last minute changes there mind. Criminal law is complex. Ie murder does not mean killing a person, it means killing with intent, with causation. Lots of people lose their cool and say things in the heat of the moment, albeit there was no criminal intent per se at the material time. If everybody were to be convicted upon saying 'I'm gonna' kill you, then the prisons would be full notwithstanding many red faces of the legal establishment.

[leclerc]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

Lots of people say 'i'll kill you' and generally means beat you up, if anything.. it's also just used as a metaphor unless there is evidence of a genuine threat to actually intend to kill the person, all of which depends on the facts. How is the person to be killed, is it hiring a gunman (contract killing), is it a knife? Where is the intention??? What about the defence where the person changes their mind, ie there was initial intent albeit the person goes so far but at the last minute changes there mind. Criminal law is complex. Ie murder does not mean killing a person, it means killing with intent, with causation. Lots of people lose their cool and say things in the heat of the moment, albeit there was no criminal intent per se at the material time. If everybody were to be convicted upon saying 'I'm gonna' kill you, then the prisons would be full notwithstanding many red faces of the legal establishment.

If the threats are made via mobile or social media could the issue be Malicious Communication Act or Harassment? I agree with you on the issue of "I'm gonna kill you"(if you've seen 12 Angry Men, that issue was part of the discussion that they had in that film on whether someone was guilty or not).

I think the OP does need to find a method or expressing his anger that does not lead to leaving threatening messages of this nature but I think he also needs to keep a record of when and who contacts him with messages that could be seen to be provocation as well.

EDIT: having looked at CPS Guidelines I think Communications Act 2003 is probably better under threats to kill.

[Openlaw15]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

If the threats are made via mobile or social media could the issue be Malicious Communication Act or Harassment? I agree with you on the issue of "I'm gonna kill you"(if you've seen 12 Angry Men, that issue was part of the discussion that they had in that film on whether someone was guilty or not).

I think the OP does need to find a method or expressing his anger that does not lead to leaving threatening messages of this nature but I think he also needs to keep a record of when and who contacts him with messages that could be seen to be provocation as well.

EDIT: having looked at CPS Guidelines I think Communications Act 2003 is probably better under threats to kill.

If it were social media then there are several but CA2003 is relevant too.

[NWHC]

Re: The mother dictating the order?

These might be of interest
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/c..._social_media/

having said that they are a little old and I do not know if that idiot graylings proposals for increasing the maximum sentaence to 2 years has been implemented
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/20...ternet-abuse/1

However , I think we really need to look at the root causes, you said that you had been paying daylight robbery amounts for counselling , not knowing where you live it is difficult to tell BUT have you talked to your GP about this and tried to get counselling on the NHS, not at all easy i know but a possibility . Alternatively there are plenty of local charities and organisations that offer counselling at much reduced rates, do not be put off by the people running these. An example I heard of was in Birmingham where the city centre church do counselling , however it is not done in a push Christianity down your throat point of view , it is done from a 'every person is important' point of view .

I would also echo what has been said, do not accept a caution without serious thought , particularly if you ever need a job with what used to be called an enhanced CRB check. I do not know the rules about legal aid right now but it used to be that everyone who was interviewed for a crime that could potentially , and I stress potentially, lead to a term of imprisonment was entitled to free representation at the police station
Phone round a few solicitors and see what they say