Channel 4 broadcast an episode of its Dispatches documentary series on Tuesday, called Torn Apart: Family Courts Uncovered, presented by Louise Tickle, above. Responses to it have varied widely. Here’s mine.
True, it featured a young man affected and lots of professional men talking about the issues, but it did not feature men abused by women or men whose children have genuinely been alienated wrongfully from them, nor those countering allegations of abuse with cross allegations of alienation.
But that’s what broadcasters and publishers do. They are not obliged to show everything and nor can they, in an hour, while also making good telly that people will be glued to. Nor is there a moral imperative to do so while evidence shows that there is a particularly urgent problem with male abuse of women and children in terms of gravity and numbers, and how it plays out in the family courts, notwithstanding the reality of abuse by women too. (See here and here).
Media regulation through Ofcom for broadcasters or IPSO , IMPRESS or internal codes of conduct for publishers intentionally leave the media free to weave strong opinions, short of significantly misleading the public and that’s always a judgment call. Arguably, it’s pretty similar to lawyers marshalling the facts that fit their client’s arguments short of misleading the court, with judges then making a judgment call as best they can on the evidence, with reasons.
True, the two shocking examples it featured were told from the sole point of view of the mothers and children, and shorn of the context that might have explained them (the judges’ reasons and the evidence the judge heard, like expert opinion and witness statements).
For those who haven’t watched yet, Julia endured 37 hearings and huge costs over 8 years trying to defend an application for shared residence by an ex convicted of sexual abuse against small children, with him getting legal aid while she didn’t, and the court failing to exercise its powers to get it resolved and then bar him from repeat applications until recently, and then only for 3 years. Jane’s children, James and Ella (also pseudonyms) were forcibly removed by police to the other parent on the basis of a family court order we are told followed findings she had alienated the children. They endured the violation and trauma of police arriving unannounced in the dead of night to force the children out in their pyjamas, despite no concerns for their immediate safety. Jane and her children were not identifiable in the video footage shown of their actual removal and were played by actors vocalising their current views.
But the reality is that privacy laws designed to protect children inhibit people like Julia and Jane from sharing the documents or details of what went on in front of the judge with journalists and prohibit journalists and broadcasters from investigating adequately, let alone broadcasting on the complexity. See here, for example. As was said in the programme, no court appointed experts would agree to take part.
True, the evidence base for knowing how often the Julia or Jane scenario occurs was impoverished and the programme left many questions unanswered.
But that is because the makers chose to use their hour slot to powerfully show the unexplainable, the unjustifiable, that isn’t normally on show beyond the internet.
The programme asked whether the family justice system (over time and hidden from public scrutiny by ancient privacy laws designed to protect children) has normalised what is not normal – and what the wider public would actually find unacceptable, abhorrent, even abusive, in its own right.
It used the plight of Julia, Jane and their children to powerfully show why increasing numbers of people are now calling for an end to that part of family court privacy law that says you can’t share the documents or story of your actual court case with journalists nor they report on it, even without identifying the children, unless you apply and get a judge’s permission on every bit of it.
Moreover, the data required to answer such key questions isn’t yet even collected with such that does exist inadequately publicly available.
The important exception for me was about legal aid.
I’d like to see the various published materials make it clear to women currently in need that legal aid is available for those alleging abuse if they qualify financially (which presumably Julia didn’t) and has not been available for alleged perpetrators since 2014. I can see why the broadcasters didn’t say this as the rules are complex and I don’t actually know Julia’s situation. But I do know that many survivors are already incredibly frightened of the family courts and lose months of crucial legal advice and advocacy during the critical early window of court proceedings because they didn’t know /weren’t told they could have legal aid or weren’t adequately helped to get the evidence to claim that.
So I’m okay with Dispatches. And some.
What they did was clever and difficult and pioneering. Which is why it’s rarely done. I’m glad the programme aired and hope it makes a difference.
What’s more I think the family justice system needs the public and the media supporting it right now in the face of wider government policy much more than some realise or articulate. See here, by Sir James Munby.
I’m also with those who are calling for a whole series. A rolling series frankly. There’s a huge appetite and a vital need.
I’m also with the many men and professionals able to listen and reflect on such programmes with an understanding that they don’t negate or seek to negate the experience of either male victims or victims of abuse by women of any type, nor to trash any of the good work the family courts also do.
And I’m firmly with those calling for greater transparency from the family courts as a matter of urgency and repeal of S.12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960.
Watch Torn Apart: Family Courts Uncovered Dispatches on catch up here: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/torn-apart-family-courts-uncovered-dispatches
[Transparency Note: Louise Tickle, freelance journalist who presented the programme is a member of The Transparency Project]
Channel 4 broadcast an episode of its Dispatches documentary series on Tuesday, called Torn Apart: Family Courts Uncovered, presented by Louise Tickle.
A very provocative & contentious serious issue which in my view & clearly in the views of many others long overdue. As a father [edited – legal reasons] who went through the family courts system a while ago I have to admit bias. In this case, I believe it is necessary because the episode raised the curtain on an area of of justice historically fraught with difficulty for all the reasons that were highlighted, particuarly by the former senior family court judge.
While the UK has only fairly recently parental alienation as detrimental to childhood development there has been serious work undertaken in the U.S. The episode in my view was strongly biased & rather than presenting issues in an informed and objective way, was, in my humble opinion, experience & limited knowledge presented emotively.
The issues of parental alienation have been proven to have been substantiated by Baker Et Al since the 90’s on the back of unquantified obsevations made prior dating back to the 1980’s in the U.S. Alienation being confirmed as detrimental quantified reality based upon what can be selected for inclusion within the latest DSM in the U.S. & used internationally as largely a trait reference guide to accuately classify psychological illness.
Contentions made about parental alienation revolve around not just psychological abuse but also emotional abuse. Whereas these two forms of abuse can be quite overt within adult relationships, it is the subtle nature of alienation tactics not always readily identifiable that impact children.
The two children who did not want to be with their father hghlights further the subtle complexity of the issue. Information provided about specific reasons regarding paternal care was not made clear. If this was for a deliberate none bias reason then perhaps it’s a master stroke of production in my opinion. The childs wishes, as in favour of maternal care were portrayed as emotionally normal. However, the daughters writing of, ” I hate my life,” in red is strongly indicative of parental alienation by the mother towards the father where there is an abscence of any normal reason for both children not to enjoy or love paternal contact. With the abscence of details/ case history/parental behaviours & attitudes/ childhood behaviours & attitutudes the focus was put squarely on the wishes of the children. Stockholm syndrome works in a similar way. The trauma event or trauma events were not necessarily the trauma event portrayed in the forced removal of the children.
I have little doubt that if my children had been woken in the middle of the night while staying with their mother they may be tired, slightly disorientated at the odd hour & nature of the event but if informed that they were going to their dads would not have had such an adverse negative reaction. While the reaction is believed to be an indicator of paternal abuse on a child, as if the maternal favour preference is normal, rather the reaction is normalised by the observer in light of that perceved bias. This of course where no evidence or reasonable reason exists whereby the children should not enjoy normal co-habitation & care from the father.
The abscence of long term detrimental effects has been slow to be observed & reported upon however there are a few online YT positive interviews by adult children who have understood & resolved alienation issues in later life. I can say with a high degree of certainty & 3 plus years of almost obsessive study into NPD, BPD, PTSD & more lately parental alienation that both my [edited – legal reasons] do suffer as a result of former alienation.
Whereas many mature couples divorce & share care amicably, in cases where allegations of abuse or undetected, unidentified mental illness exist ( which in my opinion would certainly be present in the adult abuse of a child), parental maturity varies & the degree to which it does has an impact upon the accrimonious nature of custody. In many cases it is not simply 2 people divorcing. It is the alienating family divorcing the scapegoated target parent. It is this unidentified or covert toxicity which causes long term identity issues, splitting, emotional & psychological isues & illness & in the worst cases suicidal tendencies.
The same could also have been said for the 14yr old who stated in an emotionally deragulated state that he would kill himself if he were to go to his father. While this would appear to be an emotional indicator as a level of strong objection (i.e. I hate the idea of this so much that as opposed to this man will make my life hell in a,b,c,d ways therefore my strong emotional reaction is quantified) it is more highly probable that the range of emotional disregulation displayed is possibly as a result of mimicked behaviour. A child exposed to extremes of temperament will internally normalise the extremes while unaware so ” I’m going to kill myself, ” is a response to the percieved nature of if a,b,c or d as a form of emotional control. In the abscence of details the viewer is left to discern or accept this as a normal response to a really bad parent whereas it is equally possible that the behaviour displayed is as a result of mimicked female over male co-ersive control, mental illness (BPD or trauma) arising from or prior to separation.
In the above example it is prudent to note that 27 court appearances in 8 years would be as a result of continuous claims against an imposed cohabitation order or else 27 broken contact orders by the parent with care in which case a court judge could affirm a potential change of custody arrangement if the parent with care trangresses the order at any time without a reasonable reason provided for doing so.
While I’m unaware of rules, laws or regulations concerning discussing historic orders made I will refrain from discussing the details of my specific former case . What I can say is general & based on personal observations with a varied practical experience of psychological issues & a dececnt amount of psychological & emotional awareness & observational experience being the main emotional support provider for both my adult children.
Parental alienation is a real child development & safeguarding issue. It is detrimental. It does exist. It’s outcomes can be observed & verified & are valid. Issues arise as a result of what would appear to most as normal situations which as a result of alienation serve as an emotional trigger & almost psychological loss of self in the adult child as in the child albeit temporarily in most cases, the time to resolve this will vary from couple or parent to child or children.
As an adult care support worker working with young adults with a range of rare & not so rare life challenges I have also had the benefit of working alongside support workers younger than my children. The difference in emotional & psychological self awareness & awareness is stark to me. Having worked for only a very short while with children in a learning support environment some years ago it was clear the effect of emotional & psychological growth of children from broken or abusive homes compared to my own children who were the same age at the time.
People rarely suggest a more equitable solution but perhaps a drastic overhaul of the family court system is long overdue. In my opinion, had both parents in my case been given robust psychological evaluations, guides to parenting & child law following separation & periodic case reviews taken place, particularly over the first 12-18 months of separation/divorce following an order being made a more robust & equitable decision could be made by any judge & adjusted in line with pofessional accreditted advice possibly as an aditional remit of social services staff attached to the family courts.
Law forms a relatively small part of what is required in terms of best care & a best interests evaluation in favour of the child over time. Also, over time the preferences of the child may change or the circumstances of the parent with care due to health, job loss, grief etc. A parent diagnosed with a mental illness or issue could also get well over time. BPD has proven to be succesfully healed using DBT over 1 to 2 years. There is little reason that contact could not be written into any order as a caveat to succesful treatment. In the case of more severe psychological illness such as NPD or bi polar disorder, supervised care could be introduced. A parent with Bi Polar disorder may have a window of no disregulation whatsoever but this is unpredictable. Discrimination & bias needs to be removed from the system completely. Ability to care does not mean that a disabled parent is any less or not more able than a fully able bodied parent.
The appearance of individual values should not in my view be a determinant. There are many people who use covert narcisstic tendencies which only come to light either by chance or by repeated unquantified breaks to contact orders which are eventually more than a large red flag for any judge, hence the proposed use of psychological evaluations. It is also noteable that in many abuse or alleged abuse cases, narcisstic traits can be identified. Many BPD & NPD adults never enter or avoid therapy at all costs even though it is clear that they have a profound negative effect on partners & especially upon children where abuse cannot be either proven or appears not to exist as a major concern. Sometimes both parents may have mental illnesses or issues. The family court system therefore could become a panacea for both domestic abuse & healthier more confident, creative & productive childhood development.
Hello D, Have anonymised you and slightly redacted your comment for legal reasons.
I watched the ‘torn apart’ documentary – it allowed me to find my voice.
Having suffered a miscarriage of justice in a divorce case 20 years ago, as my son is now over 18 and so, the Judgment no longer stands, but at the same time the court is refusing to release me from an undertaking never to talk to the press, so the court has put me in a cleft stick: I can’t appeal a Judgment that no longer stands because my son is over 18, but as far as the Court is concerned, no matter what I present to show the original judgment was simply wrong, it remains the truth without an Appeal – so any new evidence is just ‘facts’ that can’t be tested – and I still cant talk about it. Is that justice ? Is that transparency ? Any ideas?
Best wishes
SB [name edited]
[We are editing this comment as it is inorrect. Section 12 Administration of Justice Act 1960 applies in perpetuity. You may be in contempt if you share information about the proceedings. Sorry about that. TP] You should be able to speak about your case once its ended. the restrictions are mainly to protect the identity of any children within a live case or care order. now your Son is 18 i would think no restrictions will apply to you. check with Natasha at Researching Reform.
I am an observer to a particular case going through the Family Court – what I am most inflamed about is that I feel the courts involved may be more abusive in their handling of their hearings and the orders they endorse drafted by mean barristers who serve and win for they who can pay for the best.
I do not think they are merely cold, misled easily or dispassionate, I know they can also be incompetent AND THAT IS WHY this secrecy they wrap around themselves must stop. We can all easily recognise the need to protect young children/infants from the public eye, but the mandate to keep family hearings private should be waived where the reason and need is to find which judges are making wrong orders and out them. The case I am following isn’t interested in the children, its a brutal fight by a malicious ex-husband to continue the control and abuse against his ex-wife and unbelievably the court have discounted his malicious behaviour and have signed the order to evict his wife and children from a house he merely wants to ‘shift’ – she has no savings or resources to pack their belongings, put property in store, secure a rented or purchased property until her share of the equity is released which will force the family to move out of the area – the court was not even interested to ask how she would manage that. Disgraceful. I believe this can be done and I volunteer to work out how it should be done.
Judges mark their own homework, deny ff in cases of dom abuse, presumption of contact for violent and abusive parents, perjury and human right not to be abused regularly overlooked. Its an abusers paradise
I agree with Alice Thwaite on some points: undeniably the family courts need to be opened to scrutiny and accountability, and that for a number of reasons, but Dispatches made no real attempt to do this. Presenting exceptional cases without context or explanation risks creating a profoundly misleading impression.
Thwaite claims this is justified by ‘a particularly urgent problem with male abuse of women and children in terms of gravity and numbers’, but I would dispute that. The narrative of male abuse is ubiquitous and relentless, and very rarely balanced by any real acknowledgement of female abuse.
The consequence is a grotesquely distorted perception which then drives political and legal policy highly prejudicial to the interests of fathers and of their children. It is the other side of the issue which needs to be emphasised.
Channel 4’s programme feeds into the damaging myth that that the courts promote ‘contact at any cost’ and that parental alienation is a hoax designed by abusive fathers to continue their abuse.
Thwaite believes that the family justice system needs support from the public and media, but presenting superficially unjust cases from only one perspective removes the possibility of that support and discourages those who need the system’s protection from accessing it.
There are double standards at play here, too: Tickle’s presentation of the family justice system as the pitiless abductor of children, apparently defended by TP and Thwaite, is not dissimilar to its presentation by the likes of [edited for legal reasons].
There are many things wrong with the family justice system and a great many injustices perpetrated in its name. All this requires balanced and open discussion. Tickle was handed great power by Channel 4 which should have been wielded with great responsibility, but she chose to perpetuate a deeply misleading narrative peddled by activists [edited for legal reasons] without offering a single voice to balance them. She took advantage of the secrecy of the courts to present a distorted, one-sided and misleading narrative which cannot be addressed or countered. In my view, that propagates the very evils she professed to challenge.
Hi Nick,
We’ve had to edit your comment slightly for legal reasons.
I felt the lack of input from “expert “witnesses very telling in this documentary. If any expert witnesses are called forth for evaluations on parents and children going through family court, there should be clear references and directions as to specialist psychological evaluations on personality disorders including NPD, Sadism and ASPD and the long terms effects of abuse in childhood. Sadly those disorders are often at the root of domestic abuse, yet the traits and consequences of these destructive disorders are minimised and often ignored, due to lack of training in this psychology.
The sad facts are brushed under the carpet and the “experts” are not experts at all in this field. Therefore the weight of the expert witness report is often severely flawed and puts children at further risk of unsupervised contact with highly dangerous parents who present as charming, intelligent, articulate and loving. This is a very dangerous situation for young children to be put into.
The family court needs to come out of the dark ages with its draconian parenting styles and come into the 21st century where there is full transparency. It would still be possible to keep the names of the parents and children private under a case number, but expose the original allegations and disclosures of the children. If the public could truly see what these children are saying in the secret family court, there would be no contact for abusive parents at all. At most ‘supervised or indirect’ contact for the abusive/dangerous parent.
Sadly people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Sadistic tendencies and Anti-Social PD often mirror back to their victims what they are actually doing to their victims and then they play the victim themselves whilst further traumatising the ones they are abusing. It is deeply insidious how these disordered individuals are able to get away with it. Through the family courts “crystal ball” of assumptions, presumptions and the “12 presumptions of court” the family court system is perpetuating the abuse it is supposed to protect children from and all without accountability.
If you want to really see the long term psychological repercussions of family court rulings on older and adult children, then one might want to visit the work of Valerie Sinason or John Bowlby. Valerie Sinason is the founder of the Clinic for Dissociative Studies and John Bowlby is the founder of Attachment Theory.
The work of Valerie Sinason is very important when the question is asked, “What causes dissociative identity disorder? You might want to google that for an answer.
Bowlby believed that children are born with a biologically-programmed tendency to seek and remain close to primary attachment figures. Sticking close to a primary caregiver ensures that the child’s needs are met and that he or she is protected from dangers in the environment.
So ripping children from loving homes, in the middle of the night outside of jurisdiction hours and powers and placing them with the alleged abuser is creating serious trauma and mental health issues in later life. The damage is untold.
When the family court is opened up and we have the necessary transparency and research of the long term effects of abuse on children and the effects of the family court process, I have no doubt it will be abolished. It is not fit for purpose and contributes to long term mental health issues in children that were forced to be alone behind closed doors with their abusers, legally.
While im happy to watch any tv program willing to highlight/expose the dark side of the Family courts i was disappointed that they did not include public family law and how parents and children have to deal with dishonest council social workers and other so-called professionals from Cafcass among others.
i’d like to see Dispatched do another program dealing with that.
The Dispatches documentary only touched briefly upon the counter allegation of parental alienation being made by the abuser to counter abuse claims. When this happens, CAFCASS drive the alienation issues to the point where it completely overshadows the abuse and turns into the victim. This most commonly occurs with a controlling abuser, who plays victim, denies abuse claims and convinces all professionals involved in the case. This is the real danger. CAFCASS, their incompetence and direct advocacy for the abuser. They then write reports to the judge, submitted minutes before a hearing, with no opportunity for parties to respond and the judge, so inexplicably influenced by CAFCASS will act on their advice and recommendations without scrutiny or accountability.
This system is inherently flawed simply by the reliance of what can only be described as a third party (CAFCASS) who convey poorly articulated reports with selective use of evidence to fit in with their preconceived and biased notions. Furthermore, their understanding of domestic abuse is horrifically poor and they fail to accept the above scenario where abuser plays victim – particularly relevant in coercive control.
I have even heard a judge, repeat the exact words of the CAFCASS worker ” too intelligent to be a victim of abuse”. What abhorrent message would that send to the public? It sends no message, because the case will never be exposed to the public and was driven by CAFCASS in conjunction with the abuser and supported by the judge, who didn’t once question the views or opinions of CAFCASS, despite evidence clearly stating otherwise.
This situation would be easier to resolve in criminal courts without the influence of CAFCASS who are completely unfit for their remit and who drag out proceedings. Incidentally, this is what keeps them in work.
The role of CAFCASS was not discussed in the Dispatches documentary and a continuation of the series or report would enable a better understanding of how and why judges make poor judgements.
“[Transparency Note: Louise Tickle, freelance journalist who presented the programme is a member of The Transparency Project]”
No wonder the author of this post wrote such a glowing review of this programme. The disclaimer at the end just proves that this is a journalist in an organisation covering for her buddy in the same organisation. Showing that the Transparency project is as culpable of covering each others backs as much as they alleged the courts do in this documentary. OOOF.
It’s not a disclaimer, it’s an open disclosure. The author of this post is a lawyer not a journalist.
In another post here we round up a range of commentary and analysis we’ve seen, both critical and positive.
Just watched this. Have know for a long time how secretly our courts work. Not just the family courts.
My concern is why did you not raise the question as to who would represent a convicted peadofile and put this caring mother through such an ordeal? Furthermore what kind of legal system would allow this to happen? Who is overseeing this legal system to treat women so badly? Your questions could have been better.