Saturday, December 06, 2008

Let's keep it civil...

Somewhat belatedly my post 'Sorry but I can't sign this...' has been picked up by fathers' rights groups around the world, and they have been sending me their views, both by commenting and by email. Predictably, their reaction has at times been a little extreme. Look, gents, I know that some of you can't bear to countenance someone who dares to hold a different opinion, but I can only tell it as I see it.

I do appreciate feedback, whether in support of or against my views - after all, dialogue is what blogging is all about, and I apologise for the fact that I simply don't have the time to reply to those who have made serious points. However, such remarks as: "What sort of solicitor are you? One of the three monkeys are you. Clearly all three. Deaf dumb and blind" and: "Are you a femi-nazi John?" (whatever that is) are not acceptable, and do your cause a disservice.


  1. So, you won't be on their Christmas Card list then?

  2. So much for level headiness then. -;)

  3. Dutch Public Prosecutioner's Office Study (November 2008) showed: Child sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases unjustified in 95% of cases

    Dear John,

    With regard to your post 'Sorry but I can't sign this...' and on topic of the prevalation of false or unjustified reports or allegations of child sexual abuse made in divorce proceedings, you might be interested to know that the Dutch Public Prosecution Office has just (November 2008) finished and published its in-depth research study based on 42 cases in Dutch divorce proceedings (by mainly mothers).

    The research shows that in 95% of these cases the child abuse allegations made during divorce proceedings were unjustified and further prosecution was stopped.

    For more detailed information and a download link to the full Dutch language report ("Abuse, Deception and Misunderstanding" by the Expertgroup on Special Sexual Misconductcases with the Dutch Public Prosecution Office (OM); By mr. drs. N.M. Nierop and mr. drs. P. van den Eshof; Netherlands, November 2008) see:

    Father Knowledge Centre Europe - FKCE:

    Wishing you a Merry Christmas with your family,

    Peter Tromp PhD
    Father Knowledge Centre Europe

  4. I guess the truth hurts when you've made your fortune on the backs of the rest of us with false allegations and telling your clients to use false allegations of a criminal nature to gain advantage in civil (domestic relations) proceedings. This is a major ethical violation in the states; I presume it is in the British Bar as well.

    Statistics here in the "colonies" show that false allegations of domestic violence account for 75% or more of all D/V allegations. Child abuse statistics (by the government, no less) evidence that mothers commit child abuse over 80%of all cases; while paramours and related male family members commit on average, over 50%. Biological fathers commit less than 30%.

    US Dept. of Health & Human Services stats show us that mothers are responsible for 55% of all child killings in the US, while fathers account for 19%. (Third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse & Neglect; [NIS-3], USDHHS, page 6-11, table 6-4. To get the study call DHHS at 1-800-FYI-3366 and ask for NIS-3 study).

    Maybe it's time to re-think your career as solicitor for borderline personality disordered and murderous women, and start really doing your profession right, instead of "practicing" as a lawyer.

    Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director,
    DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)--New Jersey & New York Chapters
    (Click on NJ web page)

  5. Made my fortune??? That's a laugh...

  6. Now John, you aren't selectively moderating your comments so that you only post those that show you in the best light are you? ;-)

    ps what's the opposite of a femi-nazi - a testo-nasty?

  7. If there is no moderation then why did my response to your "Sorry, but I can't sign this..." article never make it to the light of day?

    David Reabow

  8. No comments have been deleted - yet!

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

  11. Re Bruce Eden, Civil Rights Director, DADS--NJ & NY "Maybe it's time to re-think your career as solicitor for borderline personality disordered and murderous women, and start really doing your profession right, instead of "practicing" as a lawyer."

    Stop it John, things must be bad if you are inventing this sort of is a fake right?

    Mind you I share the idea about rethinking my career...

    Great thread. Cheered me up on a Monday morning...


  12. Paul: As they say, you couldn't make it up... :-)

  13. Dear John, regarding your original post, I'd like to know how this mother knowing she could break the law and get away with it (as you advocate) is in any of the childrens interests?

    "Having twice been the target of false allegations that bore no resemblance to any form of reality I have come to see how the system works. Sadly your view relates closely to the measured responses I have had from discussions with other solicitors.
    Publically you have to defend the system which has built in bias and inequalities. These inequalities may not be represented in the actual laws but it is the implementation of these laws and lack of upholding these laws in a gender biased way that you do not seem to recognise but then go on to promote.
    I agree that the interests of a child need to be protected but in many cases this is simply an excuse for apathy.
    What is law if it is not enforced? Nothing!
    If I was vindictive like my ex and wanted to exclude that ex from my childs life had a way that - although breaking the law - was without consequince, then why should I not use it. If I found out from mates that they had already done so and got away with it, then why should I be deterred?

    The sad fact is that although the word of the law does not distuinguish between parents with parental responsibility, the implementation or lack of it does.

    This inequality and abuse of the system is what drives these cases back to the courts over and over again. This is most definately not in any childs interests and the only people who do profit from this are in your profesion.

    My two older sons who live with me have been traumatised by police invading their house early one morning (Is this in their interest?).
    They have lived for the last two months thinking that their dad could be locked up (how is this in a childs interest?)
    Hearing my son crying in his sleep that "they" mustn't take his dad away must then be what you describe as being in a childs interest.

    Then there is my baby son, now 4 and a half months. After 6 weeks of not seeing him I doubt he recognised his father and now has no bond with me, his father or his brothers. I take it you deem this to be in is in his interest somehow.

    Now why did my ex do this? Because people like you who decide that mothers should get away with it as it is in "someones" (I can't see how it can be the child) interest! Just whos interest it being served here?

    As for your statistics I suppose you refer to actual "findings" of false allegations. Well, if the system doesn't want to know about "false allegations" then it wont find many for the statistics. Sadly even the police refuse to investigate this criminal offence and therefore offer themselves to mothers as weapons to persecute fathers. I was even threatened to be physically thrown out of the police station when I tried to make a claim. So much for justice being fair, I bet they wouldn't do that to a mother, it would be politically incorrect!

    There is even a "school" for mothers who abuse the system, I have heard it first hand. Standing around the corner from a small group of mothers at my sons day care I heard it in practice. While the actual wording has long been forgotten it went something like this "Just say he hit you, it worked for me. Nothing will happen to you and they cant prove it either way..."
    A simple lie "He hit me" is enough to devastate many lives. A father is arrested, treated like a violent criminal, removed from his home and denied access to his children. His children don't see their father for weeks while the court case gets going. Eventually contact is granted but very limited while the father is on bail. Thousands of pounds of tax payers money is wasted on investigating (looking to charge rather than find the truth) and then on legal aid for the mother. The mother gets what she wants (father gone) once again solicitors make money (common theme here) and the children and father and the tax payer lose out!
    But this is all ok and unpunishable as it's in the childs interest?????
    And of course when the mother sees the chance to get away with it again, would she? I suppose all the turmoil this causes is once again ok to sweep under the carpet as it's in the childs interest.

    A recent government responce to a similar petition said it all: "If the order has still not been complied with he or she could then ask the court to enforce the order as a contempt of court, which is punishable by a fine or imprisonment. The judiciary have, however, said that they are reluctant to impose such sanctions because it would often have an adverse effect on the child"

    I guess it's in a childs interest for a mother to repeatedly deny court ordered contact and get away with it.
    I guess it's not in a solicitors interest for a father repeatedly bring a case back to court and spend thousands?
    Who is the real winner here, look at where all the money goes!

    I'd be happy to step up and be a good parent to my son while his mother serves time for her crimes against me, my sons and the tax payer. Of course I wouldn't be so cruel as to not let her see her child. Surely a father cant be that level headed?

    While I'm on here, thanks to all those women, men and friendly "bigots" who realise the injustice to fathers of the family and criminal courts and signed my petition.

    Oh yes, on a last note, it was a mother (surely not!!) and very "level headed", "child interest focused" deputy head teacher who lied to the police in my case.
    Talk about responsibility for children!!"

    I wonder how many more thousands will flow into solicitors pockets while this is sorted out? No wonder you defend the way the system works!

  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

  15. Sorry John, I'm still confused. I didn't know about "secret courts". Probably because they are secret.

    A lot of things have been said in this thread - some of it nonsense - so I shall not unduly add to it.

    Some people have been let down by the system - but that doesn't mean the system is bad or we should throw out the system we have.

    As a solicitor of many years standing I simply do not recognise the unfairness some of your correspondents see. Mind you they will regard me as part of the problem and not the solution.

    Some of the correspondents should visit the Resolution website to see how solicitors are trying to make a difference in this field.

    As ever,


  16. Paul, I agree with you on all counts. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately!) I do not have the time to argue with some of the nonsense that has been posted.

    I doubt whether Resolution will cut much ice - that is one of their targets too!

  17. You are not part of the problem Paul you are part of the solution, if you define it as nonsense that is your choice.
    You can be as patronising as you wish but most informed people understand the term "secret Courts"

  18. Dear John,

    I see you have tactfuly avoided answering how my case is in anyway beneficial to any of the children involvec.
    Neither have you explained how the fact that the mother involved will get away with it and is free to do it again without concequince, is in anyway beneficial to the children.

    Instead you have chosen to slander those who see to rectify the wrongs and take away what can only be described as a cash cow for solicitors. I'm sure that should these mothers actually be held accountable for false accusations and punished, that the number of times these cases will drop and the number of returns to court will drop.
    I'm no activist but seeing how threatening such a change is to the one profession who's interests the current system serves (thats you) makes me realise how much more this change is needed. It's time for a change! Maybe I should become an activist.


Thank you for taking the time to comment on this post. Constructive comments are always welcome, even if they do not coincide with my views! Please note, however, that comments will be removed or not published if I consider that:
* They are not relevant to the subject of this post; or
* They are (or are possibly) defamatory; or
* They breach court reporting rules; or
* They contain derogatory, abusive or threatening language; or
* They contain 'spam' advertisements (including links to any commercial websites).
Please also note that I am unable to give advice.

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.