*****************************************************************
Dear Judge Wall,

I attended the FNF AGM last Sunday and would like to make some comments on
your talk.  Firstly though I must make it clear that I am writing from as a
purely private individual who happens to be a member of FNF.  I neither hold
an official post nor am I an official spokesman for FNF.

I would like to thank you for giving up your Sunday afternoon and coming
along to give us the talk on what is a very emotive and controversial
subject.

You made the point that we should be looking to Parliament to change the
law, however, if we get a politician to speak at our next AGM, I can almost
guarantee that (s)he will say that it is the fault of the courts and they
cannot interfere with the courts.  You both say "it's them not us", which,
smacks of irresponsibility.  It does, however, at least imply that both of
you know that there is a problem, which is good news as this is the first
step to solving it.

I have no wish to tell you the law, but surely the Children's Act was made
purposely vague to enable judges enough leeway so that they could fit the
law to each individual case.  To demonstrate the range of options open to
judges we just need to look at opposing extremes.  At one extreme, judges
are allowed to give sole custody to the father and to ban the mother from
seeing her children.  At the other extreme they can give sole custody to the
mother and ban the father from seeing his children.  Judges can give any
combination in-between these two extremes, why do you say that the law needs
changing if you can make any order you wish, and why do you operate at only
one extreme of the spectrum?

One thing that you repeatedly said is that it is the written into the
Children's Act that judges should base their decisions, primarily, on "the
best interest of the children".  Forgive me for saying that your repeating
of this seems to imply that you do not believe that the fathers in the room
have the best interest of their children at heart.  I find a particular
arrogance of judges who think that they know better than parents do, what is
best for children.  May I point out that it is normally the case that judges
do not even know the names of the children involved, they do not have to
live for the rest of their lives with the consequences and they hold no
responsibility for the outcome of their decisions.  This is power without
responsibility, which is absolute power.  Despite this judges seem to have
the arrogance to believe that that they know what is best for our children.
Parents are almost the only people throughout your life that can be
guaranteed to put you first above all other considerations.  On this point I
would like to make some other comments:

Firstly, you emphasise Domestic Violence (DV), although you do not go as far
as saying the fathers should be barred from their children because of it.  I
would like to point out that throughout well over 100 reputable surveys
carried out throughout the English speaking countries runs the theme that
women commit just as much DV as men.  There are no reputable surveys that
say anything different.  It has also been shown by the NSPCC that mothers
commit 60% of child abuse and real fathers 9% with 31% being carried out by
step-fathers live-in boyfriends and the like.  Surely as far as DV is
concerned it is "in the best interest of the children" to give full custody
to the father and not put them with the mother where 91% of child abuse
takes place.  Why don't they?

Secondly, by placing girls with their mothers you expose them to eight time
the risk of sexual abuse from step-fathers, live in boyfriends and the like.
Why do judges do this if they are committed to  "in the best interest of the
children"?

Thirdly, the main responsibilities a parent has for their children are to
feed, clothe, and shelter them, for example it does not matter how much
education they get if they starve and it does not matter how much
"mothering" they get if they freeze to death.  Throughout history, these
main responsibilities have always been held by fathers, currently they are
held by fathers (although the Government has made great effort to replace
fathers with themselves paid for by fathers) and fathers will hold this
responsibility for the foreseeable future, for mothers are very unlikely to
take on this task.  Why is it  "in the best interest of the children" to
give the children to someone, other than the father who holds these primary
responsibilities?  Further to this, is the question of who pays the mother's
support.  Despite the propaganda, almost no mother supports herself let
alone her children.  Mothers are, at least partially, supported by the money
they receive for their children.  Why is it  "in the best interest of the
children" for courts to order fathers to supply enough money to their
children so that the children can support their mother?  Surely, this is the
reverse of what is supposed to happen: are not parents supposed to support
their underage children?

Fourthly, the Children's Act is gender free, why do judges almost
exclusively give the children to the mother?  Only 8% go to the father and
this includes cases where the mother has deserted the family and the
millionaires, who can spend a million pounds on lawyers to get custody.
When I said to my solicitor, who was a "trainee" judge, that I wanted
custody he said "you don't stand a chance unless you can prove beyond any
doubt that she is rolling around the floor drunk EVERY night or is on HARD
drugs" (the EVERY and HARD were his emphasis).  This implies that judges
consider that any abuse less that this is an acceptable price for children
to pay to live with their mother.  How is this  "in the best interest of the
children"?  This was especially highlighted when, a couple of years later,
Bob Geldorf got custody of his children with a reported cost of "almost a
million", subsequently the children's mother died from a heroin overdose
whilst she had care of the children.  What my solicitor did not tell me was
that even if she were a drunk or a hard drug addict, it would still cost me
a million pounds before your courts would consider giving me custody.  Do
you consider this to be "in the best interest of the children"?

I find it incredible that people talk of mediation, which is like mending an
iron girder with sellotape.  You quite rightly say that you cannot legislate
"mediation", however, you can facilitate it by making it a viable option.
Sitting two people down and saying now be reasonable and then saying to one
"but if you're not we will give you whatever you demand" is hardly likely to
achieve anything worthwhile.  If however you start from the 50/50 point you
may get some positive result.  Quite simply why should mother bother with
mediation when the anti-family courts give them everything anyway?  How do
you consider that this is "in the best interest of the children"?

Fathers agree with Parliament that a principle of the Children's Act should
be "in the best interest of the children" but Parliament never intended that
this should be the only criterion and to be used to such an extent that the
whole of the Act could be erased and in its place could be this one phrase.
Using this phrase judges commit any abuse of the law, children and fathers
that they feel like, including not doing what is "in the best interest of
the children".

Finally, I would like comment on your frequent statement that the decisions
are very difficult for judges to make.  I have heard this a number of times
from various sources and would not disagree, however, it is stated so many
times that it is beginning to sound like judges are saying that they are too
incompetent to make these judgements.  Is this the main problem?  To make a
judgement you must have at least two options.  It appears to me that in too
many cases judges are taking the easy way out and restricting themselves to
just one option, which of course is: no option, no judgement and no justice.
I have heard two "judges" state that justice is not the aim of the "Family"
courts.  This incredible admission by judges is tantamount to admitting that
the "Family" Courts are corrupt, for any court whose aim is not justice,
must be corrupt.