A good book I found, but also read Family Court HELL as that book goes inside the UK's worst ever child access case-if that does n't stop a parent wanting to obstruct their child's relationship with the other parent then nothing will.
I started reading my copy and must admit I was thoroughly enjoying it. Then Ollie ruined it all by going on local TV rubbishing his link to the Leicester job one week, proclaiming his loyality to Plymouth Argyle, then walking out to take the job the next. Fair enough, lots more money and everyone would change employers, but the extremes of his capacity to lie about things makes reading any more of his book pointless. Shame.
I've read this book and I think it underlines the pressing need for family courts to be opened up to public accountability. Because this book referes to so many cases, the identities of the public servants are all protected. But why should this be? If a judge, highly paid at the taxpayers expense draws his fat salary from the public purse, why is he not publically accountable for his errors and mistakes? Likewise, if he does a good job in resolving a dispute, then he could and should be praised for it too.
Same applies to the well paid expert witnesses who often enter such disputes with a clear agenda to tilt the proceedings almost always in favour of the mother. Open courts are not about the parties washing their dirty linen in public, open courts are about having some form of quality control over the Judiciary and the way the proceedings take place. As the saying goes, justice not only has to be done, but has to be seen to be done. But what passes in family courts for justice-when the mother is hostile-needs to be seen to be believed-but no one will let you