CAFCASS and Women’s Aid have collaborated on research about allegations of domestic abuse in child contact cases. We published a guest post by psychologist Sue Whitcombe on this here : Looking beyond the headlines: domestic abuse allegations in family proceedings.
We also thought it would be helpful to look further at what this research does and doesn’t cover. Before we do, it is fair to point out that our Chair, Lucy Reed, has in the past been critical of some of the work of Women’s Aid : broadly speaking as to the evidence base for aspects of their campaigns (See here and here and associated links for examples). That said, she also recently ran a workshop at the Women’s Aid conference on behalf of The Transparency Project, to help those working with survivors of domestic abuse to support their clients through the court process (including helping them to understand the forensic process and to come to terms with the fact that allegations are just that – allegations – until tested and proved). The Transparency Project is an educational charity and our main objective is the provision of balanced and accurate information. We don’t have an agenda beyond that, but we are not afraid to disagree with either side of the argument. We try to present things in a neutral way.
What is the Cafcass-Women’s Aid research about?
It ISN’T about rates of domestic abuse. It’s about the prevalence of ALLEGATIONS of domestic abuse and the responses to them. That is to say – if those allegations were true, do the system’s responses to those allegations look safe and appropriate?
It ISN’T a study about parental alienation. It may be (as Sue Whitcombe suggests) that some unproven allegations of domestic abuse are false or exaggerated to further an agenda of alienation, but that isn’t something the Cafcass study sets out to consider. It might be a topic ripe for some further research – but it isn’t something this study aims to tackle.
Domestic abuse or allegations of domestic abuse?
The data analysed is about how many allegations are MADE, not admitted nor proven. In most places the report is very careful to distinguish between allegations and abuse, though there are a few slips, and when the report is talking about the impact on children it talks as if a) abuse is established and b) abuse is the cause of any presenting distress / issue (as to which see Sue Whitcombe). It is fair to assume that a reasonable proportion of those allegations come from people who have actually experienced what they allege they experienced. Some may be wrong, exaggerated or false – but any argument about precisely how many would be sterile. Some of the people making allegations in this data set (and their children) needed protection. Some of the people accused in this data set (and their children) needed protection from false allegations. This study can’t tell us how well they were served, but we can extrapolate some points.
What does the data show?
About 2/3 of cases involve allegations of domestic abuse. That isn’t a new stat – it’s often said to be around that figure, so this confirms that trend. And, as we already know, dads are more likely to be the subject of allegations than mums.
The sample size is relatively small (216 cases, of which 40 were subjected to qualitative analysis) and the study is based on incomplete data, as it was drawn solely from Cafcass’ files, which are known not to be a complete record of everything (in particular orders are often not kept). For example, in about 1/3 of the cases covered, the final outcome (court order) was simply unknown. This has real potential to distort the stats. It is a shame that the study was not larger and more robust in its methodology, and whilst we appreciate CAFCASS are working on limited resources, we do think this is the sort of topic which deserves a rigorous treatment and the prioritisation of resource (see here an example of a larger study on a related topic for comparison). Sue Whitcombe has set out some of the limitations of this research in her post, so we’ll try not to repeat that.
However, some patterns emerge which seem likely to be replicated more widely :
- There were 126 female alleged victims and 40 male alleged victims. (The report does not state whether the cases included same-sex couples.)
- Where women made allegations, they made a higher proportion of allegations of coercive control type abuse (and sexual abuse) than men who made allegations – that is to say, almost all (84%) of allegations about women were of physical abuse, whereas only just over half of allegations against men were of physical abuse.
- Where domestic abuse was alleged, at first hearing stage the court was most likely to make ‘no order’ about contact (42%), with unsupervised contact ordered in 23% of cases. In cases without allegations, by contrast, the majority (55%) of orders were for unsupervised contact. (This finding differs from previous research by Hunter & Barnett in 2013, who found courts reluctant to make a ‘no contact’ order at interim stage.
- At first hearing where domestic abuse was alleged, about 1/3 of recommendations in ‘schedule 2 letters’ (brief initial safety reports) were for no contact, just under 1/3 were for supervised contact and just over 1/3 for unsupervised contact.
- Where there were allegations of abuse, it was less common for unsupervised contact to be ordered (39% in cases with allegations against; 48% without).
- Cases featuring allegations of abuse were more likely to conclude with an order for no direct contact (19%) than cases without (11%).
- Cases featuring allegations of abuse were more likely to conclude with conditions on contact.
- Cases featuring allegations of abuse were more likely to conclude with contact that was supervised or monitored in some way than with contact that wasn’t.
- Referral rates to Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes seem low. (They are often unavailable or a perpetrator is deemed unsuitable if he doesn’t accept findings; courses are less likely to be available to women).
- Nearly 20% of cases involving allegations ended up without an order for direct contact, in contrast to the wider picture of 88% of fathers succeeding in contact applications in the 2015 Harding & Newnham research. That was a more in-depth study of 174 cases in 2015, in half of which there were allegations of domestic abuse. Earlier research by Hunt and McLeod of a sample of 300 cases showed a success rate of 80% applicants having deirct contact order or agreed.
So, this report suggests that making allegations of abuse has an impact on the outcomes of contact applications. However, what these stats would look like if you break down proven or admitted allegations as against unproven allegations is simply known. In our view, this is a question that really needs to be answered, because the impression given is that the mere making of an allegation makes it more likely a parent will be able to restrict the other parent’s contact at the end of the case. That may or may not be shown to be the case if we had the proper detailed data.
A legitimate criticism might be the decision of CAFCASS to prioritise research which is only able to answer a very limited set of questions, and which is inevitably going to beg almost as many questions as it answers. There is a pressing need for more data about this – it is a shame that CAFCASS did not decide to commission or participate in some academically verified research project that incorporated both CAFCASS records and court files in order to produce more robust results.
Leaving aside these issues, the study doesn’t seem to entirely support the proposition by Women’s Aid in their Child First campaign last year that the family court operates on the basis of “contact at all costs” – where allegations are made the initial response and the outcome are likely to be more cautious than where no such allegations are raised – whether they are treated sufficiently seriously or not, these allegations seem not to be being ignored.
Useful insights from this research include :
- The apparent low frequency of fact-finding hearings compared to the frequency of allegations. This is difficult to interpret, but is likely in part to be as a result of the incomplete data – there may have been fact-finding hearings that did not show on a CAFCASS file, or allegations may have been admitted or proved via criminal conviction – or may have been rolled up with a family court hearing. It’s worrying if things haven’t improved since the Hunter & Barnett research.
- Unsupervised contact seems to have been ordered at about a quarter of First Hearing Direction Appointments where domestic abuse was raised. These are likely to be mainly cases where contact was agreed and / or where unsupervised contact had already been taking place (85% of the unsupervised contact cases had involved previous unsupervised contact)
- The report notes that “In discussions, Women’s Aid cautioned that this may not always equate to an ‘agreement’ about contact arrangements, and may be indicative of a context of coercion.” This is a fair point, and there is existing judicial guidance about ensuring that consent orders are truly consensual rather than coerced. However, we don’t actually know whether a significant proportion of these unsupervised contact arrangements were coerced – in some cases, parents do take the view that notwithstanding abusive behaviour a child’s best interests do require unsupervised contact. Perhaps in some cases they are yet to fully appreciate the impact of abuse on a child, perhaps in others they are making an informed decision and feel strong enough to manage handovers for the benefit of the child. But whilst this study incorporates a legitimate caution about potential coercion it doesn’t provide evidence about its incidence in ‘agreements’.
Responses to the research
We’ve not spotted much in the way of response to this research other than from fathers’ groups (and Sue Whitcombe as above).
For example, CYP Now report : Fathers group criticises domestic violence study. The father’s group in question is Families Need Fathers, who are reported as saying that “unfounded allegations were resulting in children being “denied time with their dads for many months”” and that “the findings promoted the belief that “fathers are too dangerous to be trusted with their own children””.
The question of how family courts can deal effectively with allegations that turn out to be false without damaging a child’s relationship with its father, whilst those allegations are considered, is difficult, and one which FNF are entitled to raise. But the complaint is not so much that this research has failed to tackle the problem – it plainly doesn’t, but rather that it isn’t an issue that seems a priority for research (or thought) for CAFCASS. We’re not sure that it is fair, however, to suggest that the research promotes the belief that fathers are too dangerous to be trusted with their own children. The report does consider the prevalence of allegations against parents of either sex, and makes clear that, in a majority of cases, contact does continue notwithstanding the allegations (albeit that it may be restricted in some way). The research gives us a limited insight into what happens when allegations are made, without telling us whether they are true and without telling us what ought to have happened in any individual case.
It is clear that CAFCASS’ priorities have been nudged in this direction by the impact of prominent campaigns like the Child First campaign and the Women’s Aid Homicides reports. Whilst the Transparency Project agrees that this is an entirely legitimate area for study it is a matter of concern if research priorities are driven by media campaigns that themselves are based on a flimsy evidence base. We think that the important topics of child homicides and family annihilation justify more robust research treatment than hitherto, and would welcome further research in this area that can help keep parents and children safe at and after separation.
Ex Injuria writes that the collaboration of CAFCASS and Women’s Aid is An Error of Judgement. Their objection is not simply about the quality of the research but the decision to collaborate with Women’s Aid at all :
For them to be working cheek-by-jowl with an openly anti-male, feminist propaganda organisation such as Women’s Aid is a profoundly retrograde step and a regrettable error of judgement by their CEO, Anthony Douglas.
One might say that if this proposition were correct it would almost certainly also then be correct that CAFCASS ought not to engage with fathers’ rights groups. And we don’t think that can be right. We think it is unhelpful to refer to Women’s Aid in such derogatory terms. They are a campaigning organisation whose focus is on the needs of women, just as other organisations have their own client groups too. We don’t think that means they have nothing to offer or that it prevents CAFCASS from working with them. We do think that an organisation like CAFCASS ought however to be mindful of the perception created by working with particular interest groups in ways which may be perceived as being to the exclusion or detriment of others. It is important that CAFCASS should do all it can to be and to be perceived as unpartisan.
The rest of the Ex Injuria post makes some legitimate points about the inherent limitations of the research and also about the quality of CAFCASS recordings (these are interesting but no link to source is provided so we’re not quite sure where they come from),
We can understand why on one level some of those who hold concerns about the tendency to conflate allegations of violence with actual violence and the way that this can (at least in the interim) prejudice quite safe relationships between an innocent parent (usually a father) and their child, might perceive a bias here in CAFCAS’ decision to work with Women’s Aid, particularly given the lack of clarity about quite how they have worked together. Since writing her post Sue Whitcombe has asked @mycafcass for clarification about the extent to which Women’s Aid were directly involved in the research and whether or not they had access to confidential files. The answers, provided via twitter, should provide some reassurance – but they would have been better set out clearly in the report itself and the accompanying press material if CAFCASS wished to avoid creating an unecessary anxiety amongst some of its stakeholders.
1/3 All data collection and analysis was conducted by Cafcass. Women’s Aid at no point had access to case files
— Cafcass (@MyCafcass) August 4, 2017
Women’s Aid contributed advice on the methodology and gave comment on the final report.
— Cafcass (@MyCafcass) August 4, 2017
No funding was provided by @womensaid. If you have any further questions about the report please email webenquiries@cafcass.gsi.gov.uk
— Cafcass (@MyCafcass) August 4, 2017
One other aspect of the safeguarding process now built into the Child Arrangements Programme which doesn’t seem to be covered in this report is the utilisation and responses to the C1A form where a party (usually but not always a respondent mother) sets out a summary of allegations of domestic abuse. Anecdotally, where completed by a respondent rather than an applicant, these are sometimes not received and considered by CAFCASS or the court in advance of or at the FHDRA, and we wonder whether this is an area of potential safeguarding risk that might also warrant consideration in any further research study.
Other areas for useful future research might be around the rates of admission / proof of allegations of domestic abuse where made in family proceedings, and the differential responses to allegations proven as against those where an allegation has been rejected, including those where a positive finding of fabrication has been made. It would be useful to understand how often intentional alienation is demonstrably a feature of a case, as compared with the prevalence of allegations (given that anecdotally allegations of alienation seem almost as commonplace as allegations of domestic abuse). The Hunter & Barnett research findings were disturbing, and it is unfortunate that no one is funding an update.
Great balanced analysis, as always. Thank you.
I remain unclear about the role of Womens Aid in the research. Cafcass state they gave input into the methodology. Were they involved in the research, or simply asked to comment on the findings? Either way, this does give the perception of bias.
I agree that this research could have been more robust and more transparent if conducted with some academic rigour and consideration of ethical issues. I am not convinced that parents would not identify themselves in some of the case studies, or that parents are fully aware how data may be used when they work with Cafcass. Can parents freely give informed consent when in reality they do not have a choice in whether they work with Cafcass or not? It is one matter to consider such data internally in relation to service development and improvement, and another for this to be shared as here, however anonymised. There is also an issue of power imbalance and injustice when a Family Court user’s data can be shared as here, yet they are not permitted to discuss proceedings openly.
Womens Aid are very clear about these matters in their current survey https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/qmulwa2017 ; this is undoubtedly as a consequence of conducting the research in partnership with an academic institution, and would be a requirement of ethical approval.
I also remain concerned about the conflation of “domestic abuse allegations” and “domestic abuse” in this report and elsewhere. I am well aware from my clinical practise and work in the court how allegations become “fact.” Whether substantiated or not, allegations remain on file as “soft intelligence” in many agencies and this can and does have significant impact in all spheres of life including employment and volunteering.
Thanks Sue, All good points.
Lucy
An excellent post as ever.
As to the worry that there is conflation between allegations and actual abuse , this is pernicious and it is sad that this study did not , as you point out, appear to consider this point.
For example, the ALC wrote to the Lord Chancellor thus, earlier this year:
“We wish to emphasise that it is not only adults, mainly women, who find themselves in the humiliating and abusive position of being cross-examined by their alleged abusers,”.
If there has been no abuse (and just allegations) why on earth is is more abusive or humiliating for those making the allegations to be cross examined by the other parent than vice versa? I’m happy to be corrected here – what have I missed?
Whilst Womansaid can be excused for pushing their agenda, CAFCASS seem to have gone along with it, but then again it looks as if they’re not alone. Unless I’m wrong of course.
FLD,
I agree that it is a pernicious issue, but am not sure the ALC quote you provide is a good example of the phenomenon. Given that they use the term alleged abusers in the same sentence I think it’s pretty clear that they are talking about potential abuse / humiliation in those instances where the allegations are valid.
Lucy
Apologies for the delay in replying – I’ve been rather distracted by other matters. I can’t help but think that you’ve interpreted that sentence as you’d like it to read rather than as it actually reads.
This is a letter by a group of lawyers to the then Lord Chancellor. It will have been (or should have been) parsed and re-read for meaning time and time again.
It could, for example, have been written as
“We wish to emphasise that it is not only adults, mainly women, who find themselves in the POTENTIALLY humiliating and abusive position of being cross-examined by their alleged abusers,”
or indeed it could have been written as
“We wish to emphasise that it is not only adults, mainly women, who find themselves in the humiliating and abusive position of being cross-examined by their [deleted] abusers,”
either of which would have made the point very clearly. Instead they chose to write that the experience of being cross-examined by alleged abusers is abusive. I’m not sure it’s clear at all that they mean what you say – two very small and simple changes would have made it read what you want it to say. Instead it clearly says, with no interpolation required, that being cross-examined by alleged abusers is humiliating and abusive.
This post observes that the corollary to my objection in my blog that CAFCASS should be working so closely with WA is that CAFCASS should not work with certain men’s groups either.
I would have to agree: I would be no less appalled if CAFCASS had produced research jointly with Fathers 4 Justice.
My argument is that by cooperating exclusively with an organisation perceived – at least by some – to hold an extreme position based on ideology and false evidence will lead in turn to the perception that CAFCASS has some sympathy with that position and cannot, therefore, act impartially in cases.
To risk creating that perception, and to be – as they apparently are – blind to that risk, is, in my view, a grave error of judgement.
It also appears that CAFCASS has not consulted with fathers’ groups such as FNF or MensAid, despite its claim to have done so.
But even if CAFCASS had – for the sake of argument – produced a report jointly with F4J, that would not provide any balance, because F4J and WA are both extremist organisations peddling lies and falsehoods. Both put the interests of their favoured constituencies first. Both ignore the interests of children.
What is required in this debate, isn’t a balancing exercise between two ideological extremes, but the total rejection of these extremes, and a new evidence-based, non-gendered, non-ideological approach focused on the needs of children and their families. But it will never happen.
Hi Nick, I know little about the current activities of Fathers 4 Justice, but Women’s Aid is a long established and reputable charity, so your description of it as an extremist organisation is not one that is shared by the Transparency Project.
Well, Julie, I suppose “extremist” is a subjective term. I mean merely that F4J and Women’s Aid represent the extreme ends of a spectrum and are both unpleasantly hostile to the constituency they do not represent. A moderate organisation, in my view, is one that is not gendered, and which can represent fathers and mothers equally, with its focus on children. I am not aware of any such organisation and parents are thus forced to choose between degrees of misogyny or misandry.
Women’s Aid sustain their position on various issues by using false evidence. Even the Transparency Project has observed, “it is concerning that the figures quoted by Women’s Aid are being reported as objective fact as to the nature and extent of the problem, when they are far from it.”
It has been widely reported that WA’s “19 Child Homicides” report carefully selected 12 cases while ignoring some 332 cases which would have contradicted their position. Lucy Reed has shown that the evidence presented by WA does not warrant their claim that the family courts knowingly send children to their deaths in order to satisfy an imagined “contact at all costs” culture. This tendency to misrepresent the available evidence is not a characteristic of a “reputable charity”.
So any organisation that represents only women is extremist? And any organisation that represents only men is also? Gender is a reality of life. Men and women have different experiences and therefore different needs. It is entirely legitimate for organisations to be set up to meet those specific needs and their mere existence doesn’t make them extremist.
Lucy
“It ISN’T a study about parental alienation. It may be (as Sue Whitcombe suggests) that some unproven allegations of domestic abuse are false or exaggerated to further an agenda of alienation, but that isn’t something the Cafcass study sets out to consider. It might be a topic ripe for some further research – but it isn’t something this study aims to tackle.”.
So, there’s unanswered questions into a person’s motives for thwarting the children being with the other parent and alienation!…and no one is curious enough to find out why…….what a surprise!!!!
“Ripe for some further research”…..so much of an understatement that we’re beyond ripe. More like rotten!
For as long the issue of DA shifts the balance in a direction favourably towards DA has happened by default and thus making it harder to prove otherwise until a person claiming DA is gospel without challenge, the reasons why aren’t going to interest anyone. The driving motive blinkers all other perspectives. When the day comes DA Is a given or consequences of DA allegations are favourable for the accuser true or otherwise without challenge, no one will care then either, because the objective of making false claims of DA would have been met. That is the end goal.
The more I read on this site and in particular, the more I read in the comments and when replies are invoked/provoked, I have an I pressing where I am seeing an organisation where transparency is a means to an end and not the end in itself. Transparency should be the goal for a more diverse pool of perspectives to draw from than for a select few people talking about a select few issues….common thread being DA and the promotion of privileges that should or are desired to go with DA by default and very little (including uptake inerest) on the counter argument. It’s like a preaching to the choir.
Wrong part of the thread…previous submission was supposed to be added to the bottom. Anyway, WA, rights for women are the best websites for LiP legal aid, the father ones or F4F are naff.
Hardly surprising really, went to a family law seminar 6 or so years ago(ish) at Bristol with HHJ Stephen Wildblood hosting and there was about 10 men with about 80 women in attendance. I am of the view merely suggesting any false claims of DA having any merit would have invoked a scene like life on earth where a pride of lionesses take down a water buffalo!
I don’t agree that WA are appropriately described as extremist Nick. The fact that as a campaigning organisation with a particular client group they are not very good with evidence at times is I’m afraid rather more commonplace than extreme or exceptional – objectionable and concerning as it is. The modern world doesn’t do “careful with facts” very well these days I don’t think, so whilst I have been critical of WA for their less than robust approach to data and evidence I think this is an unfair characterisation. They are also a very different sort of organisation to F4J. They have more influence because they are prepared to talk to those with the power to change things as well as just shout. I don’t know to what extent such organisations have made meaningful attempts to engage with CAFCASS or what response they’ve received so I can’t really comment on that.
Lucy
Ok, I accept there are problems with the term extremist, so let’s put it to one side. Having spent many years with F4J, one lesson I have learnt is that organisations which cater for only one sex foster the belief that it is only one sex that encounters difficulties and obstacles and that those difficulties are caused by the opposite sex. These organisations view everything from a gendered perspective, regardless of whether a particular issue is gendered in any way, and perpetuate a gender war which is destructive to families and to children.
In my view, the only way out of this circular and unproductive way of thinking is via non-gendered solutions which are able to support mothers and fathers equally without preconceived ideas about how domestic violence or child abuse or parental alienation work, and which recognise that both sexes can be affected by pretty much every difficulty parents encounter to a greater or lesser extent.
I can see your argument that “Men and women have different experiences and therefore different needs” – of course – but I also believe it leads to destructive outcomes – such as the lack of provision for male victims of domestic violence and their children, or for female victims of parental alienation.
I appreciate that hardly anyone agrees with me on this, and that they much prefer to stick to their safe, habitual viewing of the world through gendered glasses, whether they are male or female, and that is why nothing will change.
And as for WA, no: the fact that other organisations are equally cavalier with the truth is not an excuse for misrepresenting data to justify policies which discriminate against half the population, and the reason they currently have the ear of government is simply that their worldview is the current orthodoxy, but that can change.
I share Dr Sue Whitcombe’s concern about the conflation of ‘domestic abuse’ with ‘domestic abuse allegations’. It does not take long for any qualifying words like ‘allegations’ to be dropped when hyperbole rapidly replaces clear thinking and rigour. It is amazing how quickly these things are attributed a degree of credence they simply don’t deserve.
Here is a clear example of this phenomenon to illustrate Dr Whitcombe’s point. This instance also concerns the CAFCASS / Women’s Aid report.
On 27th July 2017 the Marilyn Stowe blog reported that:
‘Close to two thirds of family court applications concerning living arrangements for children feature allegations of domestic abuse new research suggests.’
On 1st August 2017 the Marilyn Stowe blog reported similar content:
’The report claimed that no less than 62 per cent of all applications to the courts regarding arrangements for children feature allegations of domestic violence. The figure was based on an analysis of 216 cases.’
Marilyn’s facebook page on 4th August quoted a new article entitled, ‘Domestic violence and contact, three interesting judgments and more’ by Jon Bolch on her blog stating that:
‘…Domestic violence is a factor in nearly two thirds of child contact applications, a study has found. ‘
Firstly, this illuminates Dr Whitcombes concern and proves its validity. It has only taken three days for the word ‘allegations’ to be dropped by John Bolch on the Marilyn Stowe blog thus creating a misleading impression to readers. He does this in the headline and within the body of the article
Secondly, the executive summary of the report promised that ‘…it did not seek to make findings on the allegations…’. yet John Bolch has given the misleading impression that findings were made in spite of the author’s careful qualification.
I appreciate the need to fuel controversy and create debate, but it has been a surprise to observe this happening so transparently, so quickly and so blatantly.
How long before all agencies recognise Parent Alienation Syndrome? Allegations without proof of DV are being used to deny fathers contact with their children. What is worse is how the allegation of DV finds it way into social work reports police files etc and there is no evidence.
Even as a victim of DV at the hands of my (ex)wife I have great difficulty proving the case of emotional and psychological abuse.
Gender wars and stances solve nothing we need family protection not family divided bodies to create divise attitudes….. if the time and energy were spent protecting the family unit – many of the monies might be well spent. Having been informed edexcell now has agreed with Stonewall to report three genders for exam results… nothing suprises me anymore in the UK.
Luxy R – I would suggest to you that, at the end of the day, as a Woman minded to see (often) justified injustices to Woman in many areas of society still, you are therefore blinded to this enormous avalanche of reports, committees and media purges, designed to put women on an equal footing with Men. These are the very same Men who are cited for being more committed to their jobs more than the women, offered as justification by some/many employers as the very reason women are not, and probably never will, be pay equalised with Men. I have SEVEN sisters, and loads of nieces, and LOVE to see them all progress, however the hysteria surrounding the ‘rights of women’ has absolutely sickened my advocacy for you all, and my sisters and nieces completely understand WHY (see CAFCASS, See 2 Yrs of waiting to get a half=baked and biased hearing from a Woman Judge). Please don’t try and pretend you are as ‘Independent’ as you make out. I’m sure you present well, and it is not PC to put it to you at all, but there you have it.
Kevin,
If you want to criticise me for being incapable of being independent for the mere fact that I am a woman I suggest you go over and read my personal blog at Pink Tape.
The Transparency Project has no gender agenda. We all have our biases, the trick is to be alive to them.
Lucy R
My sincere apologies Lucy R. You are of course correct, and if it makes any difference, not realising who you were, and merely misinterpreting your brief replies with ‘my own bias’ (however justified), I discovered YOUR book on my bedside table ! I bought it ages ago, and felt in areas it was extremely alive to people like me, letting their emotions getting in the way of dis(proving) the crux, and passing on the opportunity to release your two years worth of pent up frustration on an ex sitting with her legal aid Barrister (me paying £55k just to get there) and doing so smugly. Your words of wisdom I am afraid, unintentionally, were ignored, and so I had my say, and lost my kids, even though one might expect the Judge to concern herself with the minutai (i.e. evidence) and absolve me anyway. Price paid, point taken, and apologies as I now realise you are fair, and do good work. its just extremely hard not to despise those who celebrate a victory of that kind, children losing their Father, as they bounce past me into the carpark and straight on to facebook to tell the world. Apologies