JIM,  SUSIE AND ADAM

Jim and Susie never actually lived together.  Jim suggested it once but was relieved when Susie said "no",  even though by then Adam had been born.  Susie and Jim had a big row about the name.  He wanted at least some link to himself,  but Susie decided to call the child after her grandfather.  She also refused to allow Jim's name on the birth certificate.

At the start,  Susie allowed Dillon two hours contact as and when it suited her.  She would phone him if she had, say, a hairdressers appointment,  and say he could look after him - so long as he did not take him to see his mother or his sister.  Jim thought this was how things had to be and didnt want to rock the boat in case she deprived him of contact altogether.  He did not know anything about parental responsibility,  and his greatest ambition was to have his son overnight.  He did get fed up with the arrangements and one day called to her home - she lived with her parents.  Her father,  a local parish counsellor,  told him that he would have the child overnight "over my dead body",  and banned him from coming back to the house.  Jim could not contact Susie,  she refused to answer his phone calls,  and her father called the police on the one occasion he went to the door.

A solicitor told him that he could not give a costing on how much it would be to establish contact,  but probably in the region of £1500 minimum,  so long as the case did not go to a final hearing.  A friend then suggested that he contact me.  I wrote to Susie with proposals for a build up of contact over a six week period from 4 hours a week to a full day,  and then on to overnight stays and full weekends.  We also wanted parental responsibility.  Her father contacted me,  I informed him that he was not a party to the proceedings, and we put in an application for the local family proceedings court.  Four weeks later he was in court,  he was given immediate contact with a CAFCASS report on how the child was doing. 

The first session failed - "Adam has a runny nose".  We immediately wrote to the court and when we wrote after "Adam couldnt come because he had a party" the court advanced the case,  and told mother that she had better toe the line.  She did,  and we went to the next hearing with Adam clearly loving the contact.  Parental Responsibility was granted,  along with alternate weekends,  a week each at Easter and Christmas,  and a week at summer,  to be increased the following year to two weeks. 

Jim still keeps in touch,  occasionally there are hiccups,  the odd letter is needed now and again,  but Adam has such a deep attachment to his dad that contact periods are the highlight of his week and he cries when he has to go home.

Dave and Marlene

All the evidence pointed to one single fact: Dave was a brilliant dad. His own child was Rebecca who was 4 years old, and Marlene had a 9 year old son, Paul, by a previous relationship. Marlene told Dave a lot of stories about Paul’s dad – how he was violent, drunk a lot, never paid any attention to Paul, and how he had abandoned both of them when Paul was 15 months old. Paul had no memories of his dad – he vaguely knew that Dave was not his real dad (whatever that meant) and that there was someone in the background who was a horrible person and from whom he and his mum had somehow escaped.

Things started to go wrong when Rebecca was about a year old. Marlene did not want Dave near her, she insisted on separate beds – she slept in the same room as Rebecca in a single bed. There was constant tension and arguments. Dave worked away a lot, but spent as much time as possible with the children when he came home. Marlene was continuously critical of him and the children. When he was home she organised her life so that they saw little of each other, but Dave loved being with the kids and put up with this to be near them. He took them for walks, went fishing and played football with Paul, taught them both to swim, read to them at night – he was best pal as well as being the dad.

After a trip away in May, he returned to find the house virtually empty. There was a note saying “the kids and me are fed up with your moods and drinking and we are starting a new life. Don’t try to find us. I will let you know when access can start, but I don’t think they want to come yet.” There was also a letter from a solicitor addressed to him saying that Marlene was now living elsewhere, she and the children could no longer cope with his violence and moods and to pursue her would be regarded as harassment and appropriate legal action would be taken. He was advised to seek legal advice. He went to a solicitor, was quoted £3000 as a likely sum but was told this could rise. He simply did not have the funds, but a friend recommended that he contact Family Court Advice.

He was utterly appalled by the injustice and lies surrounding the situation, and needed to sit down and simply express his anger and bewilderment. The first thing was an immediate letter to the solicitor, giving the true picture of what had happened in the relationship, requiring parental responsibility for Rebecca and contact for both children. We gave them two weeks to reply before we applied for court. The reply was negative, so forms were prepared for the County Court, a date was received six weeks in the future, and he was given full instructions on what to expect, what to wear, who was who in the court, what to say and so on. He was given parental responsibility and alternate weekends for contact with Rebecca, Paul to come if he wanted to (which he frequently did). The total cost, including court fee, was under £700, something which totally amazed him. Another thing which did not amaze him quite so much – during the enquiries we came across Paul’s dad, and found that he had suffered exactly the same experience. Paul now sees his dad on a regular basis. Marlene has a new boyfriend – both Dave and Paul’s dad suggested that he should receive a Family Court Advice leaflet as part of his survival pack!

Tony and Shirley

When Charlie was born – Tony and Shirley already had a four year daughter, Tina, Shirley changed. With hindsight it was clear she was suffering from post natal depression, but it was untreated, their physical relationship went rapidly down hill, and there were arguments about money and the fact that Tony left all the housework to Shirley. Tony worked long hours as a lorry driver and was usually shattered when he came home. Tina had just started school and was quite demanding, and Charlie proved to be a difficult baby. Tony would have struggled along except for one thing – whenever he came home, Shirley’s mother was there. She looked after the baby, answered the phone, did the shopping, most of the cooking and Tony started to wonder just who it was he was married to. He and Shirley could never have a discussion, and if there were ever cross words, Maureen, the mother, intervened. (Maureen’s husband, Tom, curiously seemed to welcome this arrangement.)

A mutual friend introduced Tony to Rachel, a single parent who had a three year old son. This child saw his dad at least once every week, and Rachel always said she would never ever try and hinder this arrangement. She was very different from Shirley, warm, loving, independent and above all did not rely on her parents as though she were still a teenager. When Shirley found out about Rachel – her mother had seen them together in the local ASDA – it was as though this was what she was waiting for. She demanded that he leave, and the same day he moved in with Rachel.

Shirley demanded that contact between Tony and the children should only take place at her home; they were not to meet “that woman”. She told him that if he came round, her mother would not be there, but if ever he introduced them to Rachel, he would never see them again. She would make absolutely certain of this. Because he saw no other means of seeing the children, he tried this a few times although was very uneasy about it. Rachel accepted the arrangement but made it clear she did not like it. He went to a solicitor who told him he was lucky to be seeing the children but agreed to send a letter to Shirley requesting that Tony be allowed to see the children outside the home at least. A couple more letters – Shirley had a solicitor by this time – Tony came to Family Court Advice.

The first action was a letter to Shirley pointing out that Rachel was now part of Tony’s life, that he had parental responsibility for both children and unless there was a court order to the contrary, it was up to him to decide to whom he introduced the children. She stopped all contact, we immediately applied to the local Family Proceedings Court, and the result is that he now has the children – who get on famously with Rachel and her own child – one weekend a fortnight, a week at all holidays and starting next year, two weeks in the summer. All this for less than the cost of four letters and a couple of consultations – none of which achieved anything – with the solicitor.