For my next contribution I would like to look at the overwhelming anti-male prejudice in considering the Domestic Violence (DV) industry.
I would like to state categorically that I do not deny that DV happens, nor am I attempting to deny that some men are perpetrators, clearly this is the case. However, I wish to emphasise that women are also perpetrators, and that this obvious fact is downplayed in just about all the articles covering the subject. It is also true that not many years ago, nobody would talk about DV at all, so to some extent it is good that it is now in the open.
What is not so good is the extremist feminists assuming that ALL men are DV perpetrators and that there are no women perpetrators. This is entirely unhelpful. Also unhelpful is the determination to increase the NUMBER of reported DV allegations, rather than the QUALITY of them. This is similar to rape allegations. I shall look at sexual crimes in a later article.
1) Background
Domestic abuse, to give it the proper title, covers not just physical violence. It now also covers – financial, sexual, emotional and psychological violence and abuse.
Amnesty International (AI) were running a campaign – ‘Stop Violence against Women’ and I approached their female representative on a stand at a University fair to ask why AI were not interested in stopping violence against men as well? I was told that 40 % of violence in the world was against ‘women and children’ (notice the deliberate combination of women with children, to further exclude men). Ignoring the absurd idea of being able to ‘count’ acts of violence in any meaningful way, I asked what was the rest of the violence against? ‘Monkeys’, I queried? She then went on to say that they were ‘starting by’ targeting violence against women, as it was the ‘smaller’ problem! http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/index-eng
I joined a local DV Forum to raise awareness of DV against men and asked why they gave such a low priority (actually no priority) to DV against men and was told they were targeting the ‘bigger’ problem first! I leave the reader to draw his own conclusions.
The Family Law Act 1996 introduced the concepts of ‘Non-Molestation’ (NMO) and ‘Occupation’ Orders (OO) to the legal vocabulary, replacing the widely understood ‘injunctions’, for victims of DV by partners of former partners who had been living together married or unmarried. The NMO is used to ‘prevent’ behaviour which the victim believes is ‘molestation’ – deliberately vague. The OO is used to remove/prevent the return of a person who has a right to live in the property also occupied by the ‘accuser’.
These Orders can be obtained ‘Ex Parte’, without the accused present. Clearly, a case presented to a judge by a ‘victim’ without any balancing evidence from the ‘accused’ is likely to go through ‘on the nod’. There is then a ‘full’ hearing 7 days later at which the ‘accused’ has a chance to defend himself, if he has had a chance to get legal advice in the interim.
A ‘Power of Arrest’ is often added, meaning the ‘victim’ can ring 999 and the Police have the power to arrest the ‘accused’ immediately. There are proposals to extend the punishment for a breach to five years in prison.
These ‘Ex Parte’ Orders should only be used in the extreme cases where there is a ‘real and immediate risk of violence’ against the ‘victim’. It was expected that they would be used ‘rarely’, but in fact around 75% of applications for NMO’s and 68% for OO’s are made ‘Ex Parte’.
http://www.jsboard.co.uk/family_law/fbb/mf_04.htm
Solicitors can grant themselves Legal Aid under ‘Emergency Powers’ and the Legal Services Commission (LSC) does not appear to investigate whether these cases ‘merited’ the ‘Ex Parte’ approach. This bypasses the normal checks that the LSC make to determine whether the case has ‘merit’ to justify spending public money.
In one case, a law firm did not consider the allegations ‘sufficiently serious as to warrant an ex Parte order’, so the woman went to another law firm to find a solicitor who DID consider them serious enough. Normally, the LSC ask for reasons before transferring the Legal Aid certificate to the new firm. This normally requires the client to complete the complaints procedure with the first firm before a transfer could be considered. However, in this case, the Legal Aid certificate was transferred over immediately, without any contact being made with the first firm. When this transfer was queried, the LSC simply state that they believed that this was ‘an emergency’, and hence bypassed their normal rules.
So what constitutes ‘behaviour’ suitable for these injunctions? For an NMO, the ‘accused’ must ‘harass, pester or otherwise interfere with’ the ‘victim’. These are true stories:
a) There was an argument, the couple shouting at each other. The woman started to walk away and the man grabbed her arm and pulled her round and she banged her head on the doorframe.
b) A relationship ended. The man sent the woman intimate photographs he had taken of her with her consent during the relationship. He drove past her house on average once per day. On one occasion he stopped outside and looked up at her and made eye contact ‘for about a minute’ before driving off.
c) On separating, the woman kept the 7 cats and the man wanted to see them regularly. Initially, there was no problem, but the woman decided to block contact without warning. The man then rang and texted a few times to ask when he could see them. The Police were called and he was told to stop harassing her.
d) A woman repeatedly attacked a man. He defended himself and accidentally caught her ear and caused a cut. He dialled 999 and was arrested and removed from the property.
e) During handover of the child at the end of a contact weekend, the mother claimed the father had slapped her in front of the child. He denied anything took place. She refused contact and he went to Court for enforcement of the Order. Owing to adjournments and delays, it took two years for a ‘fact-finding’ hearing to get to Court, during which time the father was not allowed to see the child.
f) A woman was abusive to her husband over many years. One night he woke up and found her leaning over him with a knife. He managed to disarm her. Eventually, he managed to persuade Social Services (SS) that she was a danger to the children and he won ‘custody’ of the children. He said that for the sake of the children, he would stay there until he could convince the authorities that she was a danger to the children. Because it was a female perpetrator, it took many years to convince the authorities that he was right and their prejudices were wrong.
g) A father complained regularly over many years to the SS about his child being dirty and uncared for and that the mother was a drug user. Eventually, they attended the house and found unbelievably bad conditions and an emaciated girl. The SS spokeswoman told the newspapers ‘we assumed that because it was just the father complaining, it was not really a problem, just a typical domestic dispute’.
2)Retraction Statements
It is widely accepted that it is common in DV cases for the ‘victim’ to keep going back to the ‘perpetrator’ and to withdraw allegations. In order to increase the number of successful prosecutions, the Crown Prosecution Service (who take all criminal cases on behalf of the Police- CPS) have been given the power to continue the prosecution, even in the absence of the main witness. Theoretically, the CPS can prosecute the ‘accuser’ for wasting Police time, but I bet they rarely do so. It is interesting to compare the determination to prosecute people for making false 999 calls (mainly men?) with their lack of interest in prosecuting people for false allegations of DV/rape etc (mainly women?). In the former case, a little bit of fuel is wasted by the Police/fire/ambulance being sent out unnecessarily. In the latter case a man’s life is permanently wrecked.
3) Burden of Proof
Where DV allegations are rapidly increasing and where they are most damaging, is in the battle over children. In order to stop the father seeing the children, it is now increasingly common for the mother to make allegations of all kinds amounting to DV either against her or the children. He ‘thumped the table’, ‘shouted at the cat’, ‘kicked the dog’, ‘slammed the door’, threw the newspaper onto the sofa’, ‘smacked the child’, ‘did not change the babies nappy’, ‘fell asleep with the baby in bed with him’ – these are all examples of behaviour that has been used by mothers to blacken the name of the father. In most cases, the mother deliberately provoked the reaction, or may even have committed similar acts herself, but these are never investigated.
What typically happens in a contact/custody dispute is that the mother will block contact, the father takes her to Court and she will introduce one of the above allegations as grounds for blocking contact. The Judge will typically appoint the SS to investigate and in ‘extreme’ cases, the Police will also be involved. Contact will be immediately suspended ‘in the interests of the children’ – in other words, the father is guilty until proven innocent. The SS will take 3-4 months to write a report on this non-existent incident. Most of their ‘evidence’ will be taken from the mother. They will normally visit the children at the mother’s house and often with the mother present. Maybe, they will even invite the father to their office – once. They are unlikely to arrange contact between the father and the children in order to observe the children with him. At the end of this ‘investigative’ process, the SS will report that they have ‘serious concerns’ about the father’s behaviour and recommend only ‘supervised’ contact for the ‘foreseeable future’. It is impossible to prove a negative. How could you prove something did NOT happen?
4) Balance of Harm
What is also forgotten along the way is the damage to the children by being denied contact with the father. Since the overwhelming evidence shows that children brought up by single mothers do significantly worse on virtually all the negatives in society (drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, educational performance, crime etc) than children brought up in a two parent family – the difference clearly is the presence or absence of the father – the Court should be extremely reluctant to remove the father from the children’s life owing to the extreme damage likely to be caused to the children by doing so. Is the almost certain ‘harm’ to the psychological and emotional development of the children caused by the removal of the father greater than the likely damage caused by the risk of further DV against the children if the father continues to be involved? This is the key question and is never asked in the anti-male atmosphere of the family Courts as it would mean REALLY considering what is meant by the best interests of the children, as opposed to the best interests of the mother.
5) Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)
http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/pas.htm
One of the worst types of child abuse is ‘poisoning the mind’ of the children against the other parent, normally by the mother against the father, and it is not even officially recognised as DV or child abuse in the UK! This is where the mother deliberately uses her power over the children to take revenge on the father. For example, the mother would say that the father is going to beat/smack/abandon/abduct/starve/abuse the children on the next visit, thereby scaring the children into not wanting to go. Other variations include bribing the children with alternative distractions at the time of the father’s contact. ‘Johnny, would you like to go /swimming/ cinema/play area/Disneyland/use playstation/friend’s party/shopping/boating/ice skating or see your dad’? One child even told the SS that when he asked to see his dad, he was told ‘you can walk to Scotland if you want to see that f***ing b***d!’ Nothing was made of this blatant PAS and the father was denied any contact at all.
Another tactic that mothers use on their unsuspecting children is emotional pressure. The children see the mother getting upset or crying at the mention of contact with daddy. If the children express delight or enthusiasm at the forthcoming visit to dad, the mother will burst into tears and make it clear she is unhappy about their happiness. They therefore have to ‘internalise’ their delight at seeing their father, thereby depressing them. It is not surprising that the incidents of mental illness and counselling for children going through family breakdown have jumped dramatically. The SS cannot see the obvious connection between denying the children contact with their father and having to offer counselling services to the children to cope with the absence of the father. The solution is far too obvious for the SS – don’t remove the father in the first place!
In Iain Duncan-Smith’s 100+ page report (December 2006) on ‘Family Breakdown’ to the Conservative Party, there were few if any mentions of institutional anti-male discrimination as mentioned in these articles. However, there were ‘boxes’ scattered through the report – two or three lines of ‘verbatim’ comments made to the researchers. One such comment was said to have been made by a ten-year-old girl – ‘”I don’t like living with my mum and her
boyfriend. They don’t love me. Since the
divorce I never see my dad and I have to lie
and say everything is ok to the social worker
or my mum will get angry.” Katie, 10’.
http://povertydebate.typepad.com/hom…_breakdown.pdf (Page 24)
There was no reference to this damning indictment of the system anywhere in the text.
6) Advice to Judges
Whilst the overwhelming prejudice against men/in favour of women in the legal system has been mentioned in previous articles, in DV cases it is most obvious. Since most incidents of DV happen when the parties are alone, it becomes “his word against hers”. In these circumstances, the Judge’s prejudice is the crucial decider. Who should he believe, the man or the woman? Theoretically, it is up to the person alleging the facts to prove them. As we have seen, in the Family Courts, it is simply the balance of probability – is it ‘more likely than not’ that the incident happened?
It is extremely revealing to read the advice that Judges/Magistrates received before handling DV cases. It is now available on the Internet at www.jsb.gov.uk. The Judicial Studies Board publishes a ‘Bench Book’ – advice for the ‘Bench’ ie the Magistrates. There is advice on every subject that the Magistrates are likely to encounter. There is advice on DV. http://www.jsboard.co.uk/downloads/f…c_violence.pdf
There is advice on treating women fairly (but not men!)- http://www.jsboard.co.uk/etac/downlo…d_equality.doc
It could have been written by a feminist organisation like Women’s Aid. It is entirely unbalanced.
When I applied to become a Magistrate, before I really knew anything details about the law, I got to the final interview and was asked the following question:
“A mother has been found guilty of stealing from her employer and passing the blame onto a fellow employee. The father has occasional contact with the children. How would you approach sentencing the mother?”
Since I had no idea about possible sentencing, I indicated that I thought this was unfair. I was told that they were more interested in my thought processes to approach this issue than real sentencing. I did not see the obvious trap they were setting and walked right into it.
I said that clearly the children and the father were also victims here. It was important to punish the mother to set an example to other mothers in the same circumstances that stealing from their employer was no solution to an inability to cope on a limited budget. I said that the children should live with dad and he should be given a chance to develop his relationship and see if he could cope better with the juggling than the mother had been able to. I said when she came out of prison, she should be allowed contact with the children, but not given custody until she had demonstrated that she could cope on a limited budget without theft. If she were not jailed for this offence, the children would learn that as a mother you could get away with anything by just being a mother.
I was told that I might find ‘being a magistrate a bit restrictive on the type of sentences I could award’. I was also asked – ‘what would you do if the genders were reversed?’ I said that I would do exactly the same as I believe men and women should receive the same punishment for the same crime. I nearly added, “Don’t you?” – but I think they would have had a heart attack, if I had asked them that question! Needless to say, I was not offered the position!
7) Immigration cases
When a British man marries a non-EU woman, she can obtain a ‘spousal’ visa, which will mean her passport will be stamped with ‘no recourse to public funds’. Since he will have had to demonstrate to the British embassy in her country before she can get the visa that he is capable of financially supporting her, he is expected to do this without her being able to claim benefits or tax credits in her own name. These regulations are designed to try and prevent economic migrants coming to this country and taking advantage of our incredibly generous state support system. However, it fails for two obvious reasons –
a) If the woman is a mother and brings her children with her, then clearly the man can claim child benefit, child tax credit and all the other benefits associated with having children in his name instead.
b) If she needs legal advice, then Legal Aid IS available to her as denying it would be a breach of her Human Rights. She would be assessed on the basis of their joint income UNLESS the claim is against him.
After two years in this country, she can make a claim for ‘naturalisation’ – to become a British citizen. She would have to satisfy the authorities that she can speak a ‘reasonable’ level of English and that she has a ‘reasonable’ understanding of British life (two separate tests).
If there is a divorce prior to the completion of the two years, then she loses her right to remain in the UK and ‘must’ return home. Many foreign women have now found out another way to stay in the UK – the DV allegation.
The Home Office have special ‘discretion’, when DV is alleged by foreign wives, to permit them to stay. Theoretically, there would be an ‘investigation’ before granting this discretionary right. In one case, a foreign wife who had already separated from her husband, came to the UK as a visitor, having left the children behind, and overstayed. He later came to the UK legitimately with the children and obtained a work permit. Feeling generous, he tried to help her by supporting her and attempted a reconciliation. It ultimately failed and she left with the children to live elsewhere in the UK. She tried all the tricks – including making an application as an asylum seeker – over many years and they were all rejected by the Home Office. Eventually, someone must have suggested the DV regulations and she made allegations of DV against him and applied to the Home Office. They rejected her application on the grounds that – the marriage was over before she came to the UK, that the two incidents reported to the Police did not amount to DV and that she should have been here legally in order to use the discretionary grounds in the first place. She was given ‘administrative deportation’ – she was asked in a letter to leave! Needless to say, she did not do so. She then applied for a Residence Order, knowing that that would give her a greater right to stay in the UK. Bizarrely, the Judge granted her the Residence Order, apparently without even considering her illegal status in the UK. The matter is currently being appealed.
Housing
When a woman claims she is a victim of DV, she has many options. If she approaches the Local Authority, she can claim to be homeless. For homeless applications, they must apply five tests. The first one being – is there anywhere else that the claimant has a legal right to occupy? Since a DV victim would normally have the right to occupy the family home, she should fail the first test. However, she can circumvent this test with DV, by claiming that the accommodation is unsuitable as a result of DV. She would then be in priority need as she is ‘vulnerable’ and they would have a duty to house her.
Alternatively, there are 600 refuges in the UK for female victims of DV to escape to. There are only three for men, and two of these have been opened in the last two years.
www.mankind.org.uk
9) My proposals
In addition to the ‘Balance of Harm’ test I proposed above, I would also suggest the following:
a) I propose that where allegations only emerge AFTER the parties have separated, but relate to incidents BEFORE the parties separated that the presumption should be that the incidents did NOT occur. In particular in the absence of any Police incident reports or hospital visits.
b) Whilst much is made of the difference in ‘burden of proof’ between the criminal and civil systems, in the absence of even a charge against the man, I would argue the thresholds should be similar.
The Police have to consider whether there is a ‘realistic prospect of a conviction’. This means that ‘there is a better chance of conviction than not’ – ie about 51% probability. The family Courts have to consider the ‘balance of probability’ – is it ‘more likely than not’ that the incident occurred – 51% probability. It is different if the case goes to the criminal Court and the man is found innocent. In order to convict in the criminal Courts, the CPS have to prove their case ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, theoretically a very high standard of proof, and clearly much more than 51%. However, it is possible for a Judge to conclude that the case ‘should never have been brought’ and can invite the CPS to prosecute the ‘accuser’ for wasting Police/Court time – but I doubt this happens very often.
I would therefore propose that if the Police are involved and after an investigation they conclude that ‘there is no realistic prospect of a conviction’ so decide not even to charge the man, then the presumption should be that the incident did NOT occur.
10) Conclusion
I believe that there are ‘training camps’ for women to teach them how to use the DV regulations to punish and criminalise men and to deny fathers contact with their children.
It would be wonderful to find a woman willing to be ‘wired’ and go undercover at a local DV for women’s victims ‘camp’ and listen to the lecturer teaching women how to make false allegations and to use the system against the men!
Now THAT would make fascinating television!
Tags: abuse, children, discrimination, domestic violence, female, gender, human rights, injunction, male, perpetrator, victim
