Why no one invades Switzerland

I'm not a booster of gun control nor an advocate for a weapon in every home but the Swiss do a number of things better than others. This seems to be one of them.  I think there is a lesson here for gun control advocates.  The idea  is in keeping with a very well organized military service commitment.

University of Ottawa Women's Resource Centre- Hate Speech

Friday, January 29, 2010 1:30 AM 

MEDIA ALERT

Happening Right Now

Captured by Cellphone Photography The University of Ottawa Women's Resource Centre- Hate Speech-Sent to FathersCan by a third party via a student at Ottawa University. Its an "In the Window Now" Situation. Male Students report being outraged 

FathersCan asks what would the public and media reaction  be if the wording was somewhat different and reflected a male perspective about dangerous women? The reader can use their imagination Would a 'Men's Resource Centre' be allowed to display something akin to this (even were there to be such a resource centre which there isn't)  So? Hate Speech or Not? Does the Law allow this? Not for men to do for sure.

Dad lost his kids due to bogus doctor and the Durham Region Children's Aid society

The following story is yet another tragedy discussing a case of a dad who lost custody by a  misandric  court judge. This bencher may be incompetent in dealing with complex interpersonal human relationship actions particularly dealing with child custody and who is part of a group who give sole physical care to moms 90% of the time. They do it on the least amount of evidence favouring the mom even if there is overwhelming evidence she has serious problems.  It is a production line of negative consequences for children based not on good science but mythology.

Justice Alexander Sosna has the appearance of just another eunuch, also known as a chivalrous drone, no doubt having received training proffered by people like Peter Jaffe, a useful tool of the feminists, that causes these judges to marginalize and bankrupt fathers. Jaffe is infamous for his cherry picked studies deliberately refusing to ask simple questions of his subjects, most all of whom are in a DV shelter, such as whether they abused their male partners.  He, therefore, gets the answers he is seeking because women are in these shelters ostensibly because they were abused. This is not always the case as I have documented elsewhere. He is one of the favourites of the National Judicial Institute (NJI) who arrange training for judges. No one else is privy to the information on this training and its content but based on the 9-1 ratio for mom getting sole physical custody it is not hard to guess the feminist psycho babble that all men are abusers and all women benign holds sway.

In 2006 the Federal Conservatives appointed to Ontario's Superior Court, longtime Conservative Alexander Sosna, an Oshawa lawyer who ran unsuccessfully for the Conservatives in the 1984 federal election. Sosna is another political hack but then that is the nature of the game for appointments. It is not merit but who you know. He certainly doesn't subscribe to any notion of equality between parents.  Conservatives are supposed to be the party of family values but when it comes to marriage breakdown they are as pro-feminist as any lefty liberal or dipper. Sosna was the defence lawyer in a case in Oshawa several years back ( circa 2004) involving 2 boys  who were being caged and beaten by their foster parents. He got the foster parents off with a very light sentence of 9 months. The Crown was seeking 8 years.  Who did the  assessments on the abusive foster parents? Something else fell through the cracks.

I have stated before it matters not whether you have a criminal lawyer turned judge in these chairs or a real estate lawyer turned judge.  They are not competent to judge on complex human interpersonal dynamics involving family disputes unless they are the extremely rare appointee with a PhD in Psychology.  Child custody is more about interpersonal relationships than law.  Putting a non-feminist psychologist in the chair as judge would render more informed and balanced decisions.  Even when a judge has a comprehensive psychological report from a competent clinician Sosna chooses the phony one because it favours mom. He should be thrown off the bench but then so should a lot of the other ones who are trained to believe fathers are incompetent and potentially dangerous to have even shared custody.  Did I also mention there is this business of entitlements that goes to moms if they have sole custody which also suggests tacit approval by the other branches and levels of the nanny state, such as Status of Women at each level.

This Durham Children's Aid Society is a disgrace and may represent a danger to vulnerable children they have contact with. Hopefully the police will do a thorough investigation of this organization and the management and any potential conspirators working in it are summarily fired and charged for fraud and child abuse. If this fraudster, Carter,  has been doing this for 18 years it is worthy of starting a public inquiry into the operation of Children's Family and Protective Services across this Province especially if they operate using the Feminist dogma of a Patriarchy oppressing females  and appear to want to officially align themselves with the Violence Against Women movement here who deny females can abuse and promote the fallacy of a Patriarchy whose role is to coerce and abuse women. In math terms the formula is male=abuser, woman=benign. The whole philosophy and doctrine is based on falsehoods and can be considered perpetration of a fraud in and of itself.

These are quotes from the Durham Region News  who interviewed  Executive Director of the Durham Children's Aid Society, Wanda Secord in the left photo.

"But he also carried out parenting capacity assessments, measuring the suitability of people to care for children. Ms. Secord noted that in cases where Mr. Carter carried out such assessments, all parties involved had reviewed his qualifications and agreed to his participation."

We are missing the how of this review. Did the CAS produce what they had on file which we know is phony or did they contact the CPA or the Provincial governing body to determine his level of education, what his Doctoral Dissertation consisted of and any conclusions it uncovered.  The CAS has the overall responsibility to ensure they have hired a person qualified to do the job. They obviously do not undertake due diligence and this may only be the tip of the iceberg.

"Allegations that Mr. Carter falsified his qualifications have given rise to questions about the validity of rulings rendered in cases he took part in.

"There could be a potential impact on children and families," Ms. Secord acknowledged."

This is quite an understatement from a person entrusted with the welfare of children and making over $130,000 per year of taxpayers money.  Secord was predicting a spending overage of $3.9 million as of October, 2009. Perhaps a new model of child welfare agency is necessary that can protect children but be prudent fiscal managers and that is not aligned with an ideological feminist dogma that appears to be on the table through its March. 2010 meeting with the Violence Against Women sector.

The Durham CAS has the dubious distinction of being the first Child Welfare organization in canada to be successfully sued for negligence based on false allegations, also involving a father. The following is an excerpt from a report done for the Canadian Federal Government entitled "ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE IN THE CONTEXT OF PARENTAL SEPARATION: A DISCUSSION PAPER."

" 3.2.1 Child Protection Agency Liability to the Wrongfully Accused Parent

There have been a number of highly publicized cases in Canada in which individuals have claimed that they have been wrongfully accused of sexual abuse by "overzealous" investigators, and have sought redress in the courts.  In most cases, these individuals have been satisfied with an acquittal in criminal court, or a finding in a civil proceeding that refutes the abuse allegation.  However, in a few cases individuals have sued investigators for monetary damages to compensate for the expense and emotional anguish from being wrongfully alleged to have abused their child.

Perhaps the most noteworthy case^[36] of agency incompetence and bad faith began in 1987 when a Children's Aid Society in Ontario supported allegations of sexual abuse made by a mother against her former husband.  The initial allegation of abuse arose in the context of parental separation and related to the couple's young children.  The agency worker with primary responsibility for the investigation was inexperienced, and the judge in the later civil case brought by the former husband concluded that the investigation and subsequent agency conduct were negligent in several critical respects.

Shortly after the initial report from the mother was received, and without interviewing the father, the worker quickly concluded that the mother's sexual abuse allegations were well-founded.  The worker's initial interview with the children had many leading questions, and was conducted in the presence of the mother, who was clearly hostile to the father.  The worker later displayed hostility towards the father and his lawyer, and dismissed any concerns about the mother without investigation.  Indeed, reports by the children of ill treatment by the mother and the worker's direct observation of poor treatment of the children by the mother were ignored by the worker.  The father was not adequately interviewed for his version of the alleged incidents until two years after the initial allegations.  The worker kept very poor notes of the various interviews and none were audio or video recorded. 

As the child protection trial proceeded in Family Court, it became apparent that the agency's allegations were groundless, but the agency refused to discontinue the protection application unless the father agreed to forego any claim for court costs.  The child protection trial eventually took 51 days to complete.  The judge in the protection hearing dismissed the agency allegations against the father, awarded him custody of the children, and ordered the agency to pay $60,000 towards the father's legal fees. 

The father then began a civil suit against the agency and the child protection worker to recover the balance of his legal and other expenses incurred in his lengthy battle to regain his reputation and custody of his children, as well as punitive damages.  In 1994 in D.B. v. C.A.S. of Durham Region, Justice Somers of the General Division of the Ontario Court of Justice awarded the father over $110,000 in damages resulting from the false allegation of sexual abuse.^[37]  

The judge in the civil suit concluded that the agency and worker had been negligent and unprofessional in their treatment of the father, negatively affecting both the father and his children.  The judge found that the father, an Anglican minister, suffered emotional trauma and loss of reputation as a result of the child protection proceedings and awarded $35,000 in damages for this, and an additional $10,000 for exemplary damages to punish the "bureaucracy's" incompetence and abusive actions.  The court also awarded a total of $1,500 to the two children for their emotional harm and loss of enjoyment of their relationship with their father.  The trial judge also awarded the father $77,000 to cover legal, travel and telephone costs not previously paid as a result of the Family Court proceeding, though the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced that part of the award by $25,000, ruling that the issue of recovery of legal expenses was fully resolved in the earlier Family Court proceedings.  While the Ontario Court of Appeal reduced the damage award, it affirmed the principle that an agency could be liable if it was both negligent and biased in its investigation. 

The decision in D.B. v. C.A.S. of Durham Region may seem burdensome for a public agency with an obligation to investigate all reports of abuse^[38] despite limited financial resources.  However, the Court of Appeal emphasized that there was not merely negligence, but actually a demonstration of bias sufficient to conclude that the agency staff was not acting in "good faith."  Not only did the agency carry out an inadequate and biased investigation, it continued a lengthy child protection proceeding only because the father pressed a legitimate claim for payment of his legal costs in the protection hearing.  The decision emphasizes the need for child protection agencies and their workers to conduct fair investigations, and treat fairly those alleged to have abused children. 

While D.B. is a very disturbing case, it is the only reported case in Canada where a child protection agency has been found liable to a falsely accused parent.  In other cases where an agency has been found to have supported an unfounded allegation of parental abuse and been sued for alleged incompetence in investigating abuse allegations, the courts have dismissed the claims, generally by finding that the agencies were acting in "good faith" and hence entitled to statutory immunity from civil suits for "mere" negligence, or the cases are still before the courts.^[39]"

They have been involved in other litigation as well including (Schmitz 1994).  This is but one agency exploring affiliation as a member of the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies  (OACAS) with the Violence Against Women Sector. Dads need to be aware of this potential alliance and its ramifications given VAW supports the theory of a Coercing Patriarchy in which all men are abusers and all women benign.  Many organizations do not learn from history and it appears more extensive extreme bias against males may be in the offing.

Here is a recent unfolding case in the Victoria, BC  area with another fraudster former Children's Aid Investigator, Jason Matthew Walker

MJM

By MICHELE MANDEL, QMI Agency

An alleged victim of Greg Carter's - who cannot be identified - holds a business card identifying him as Dr. Carter. (Ernest Doroszuk/QMI Agency) Fraudster posed as doctor in court Grandfather investigated fake doctor

WHITBY, Ont. -- A child custody battle is an ugly, twisted jungle at the best of times, but a Whitby father never stood a chance after family court accepted a disparaging assessment done by a man posing as a psychologist.

And ignored the one by the true PhD.

Now the terrified 48-year-old dad must share custody of his two young boys with a woman who the real psychologist has warned is mentally ill and poses a danger to their care.

Greg Carter, 63, has been charged with three counts of fraud, two counts of obstructing justice and two counts of perjury for allegedly impersonating a psychologist.


He is also facing a complaint of professional misconduct by Ontario's College of Psychologists.

"Nobody should go through what I went through," says "Mr. S", the angry father who can't be named because the case involves the Children's Aid. "If he had kept his unqualified opinion to himself, my children would be safe and we wouldn't have lost all our money to lawyers."


The dad had his suspicions after Carter presented an assessment to family court that said  the father had a narcissistic personality disorder -- despite never meeting him -- while administering one test on his ex-wife to completely dismiss an exhaustive, 37-page evaluation by a highly respected psychologist who diagnosed her with a borderline personality disorder.


Rattled by his findings, Mr. S. contacted the College of Psychologists of Ontario and discovered that Carter was not a psychologist at all, but a psychological associate whose registration stipulated that he was not allowed to make an independent diagnosis without the supervision of a qualified psychologist.

He had also told the court that he had a PhD from Pacific Western University, the now-defunct school that awarded degrees based on "life experience" and was branded a "diploma mill" in a report by the U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs.

"I can't believe nobody checked his credentials until I came along," says Mr. S.

What's even more astounding is that Justice Alexander Sosna was then presented with a letter from the College outlining Carter's restrictions -- and the fact that he wasn't a psychologist as advertised -- but still chose to accept the bogus doc's assessment and set aside the damning one by the real psychologist.


The judge, who has a background in criminal, not family law, rejected the dad's bid for sole custody, threw him out of the matrimonial home and ordered him to pay his ex-wife's $13,000 in legal costs within 90 days or he wouldn't be able to see his kids at all.

He had to go to the bank to get a loan because the protracted custody battle had wiped out his $400,000 in savings. But the drain on his finances pales beside his constant fear of what will happen to his sons in their mother's care.

He doesn't understand why a former criminal lawyer is ruling in family court.

"Carter is just one piece of a whole broken puzzle," insists the beleaguered father.


But an integral piece. Mr. S. went on to launch a complaint of professional misconduct against him with the College as did the real psychologist.


"He has been masquerading as a psychologist for some time and had deceived myself and the public about his credentials," the doctor wrote Mr. S. "His conduct is simply unethical."

Carter did not respond to messages left at his home and his Whitby office.


He did offer a tepid mea culpa in a December 2008 letter. "While my concerns are not groundless, I now believe that expressing them in written form based on the information I had was wrong. I owe Mr. S. an apology for that mistake."

But his apology will not give Mr. S. sole custody of his children or undo the harm Carter has allegedly caused in at least two other child custody disputes, including one where his testimony led to a granddaughter being wrenched away from her grandparents after she'd spent most of her 10 years in their care.


"What's an apology if you don't fix the problem you created?" demands the heartbroken father. "He's got to have affected hundreds of people. He's been doing it for 18 years."

And that is why all of his cases need to be reviewed if he is found guilty.

In the meantime, what about all the poor children?


In Mr. S's case, the Children's Aid is now involved after the mom allegedly restrained the 9-year-old by throwing him to the ground and sitting on him. In a list of written expectations on a CAS contract, his ex-wife has been told that her discipline "at no time shall include sitting on either child."

The worried dad has pleaded with them to remove the boys from her care, especially now that Carter's assessment has been discredited, but they refuse.


They say there is nothing they can do but monitor the situation. After all, there's two conflicting psychological reports and the judge accepted the one by Carter
.
They don't seem unduly concerned that he's a man now facing charges for fraud.

READ MANDEL EVERY SUNDAY, THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. MICHELE.MANDEL@SUNMEDIA.CA OR 416-947-2231.

Fake Doc accused of fraud

We had a recent case of this occurring in BC here and it also has ramifications in family law. I have been advised the Durham CAS is very pro-feminist and pro-maternalist in their approach and there could be a great many cases where they have hired a fraudster to give them a  sympathetic report.  The whole area of pro-feminist approaches to the family and the so-called patriarchy victimizing women is a fraud unto itself and the ideology is an open door to smooth talking charlatans and gullible ideologues. Note the CAS spokesperson would not answer the question of checking credentials and they are in a "kind of wait and see position." Doesn't that give you a lot of confidence in child welfare.  Hopefully the police will request interviews with the management of this facility and others.

There are lots of impostors only to willing to pander to the feminist belief of victimization by the patriarchy for profit. This belief, of course, means men are too dangerous to have custody of children when in fact a child is safest when in a two parent biological family or with their biological father.  Back tracing of this individual's involvement in Family Custody Cases in particular will be important.MJM

Conducted psych tests on kids

By Don PEAT, TORONTO SUN

Last Updated: 26th January 2010, 10:02pm

This doctor was never in.

A Whitby man is facing a fraud rap after allegedly posing as a psychologist while testifying in child custody cases.

But according to the College of Psychologists the man accused of playing doctor — who’s a registered psychological associate — is already facing a professional misconduct complaint.

Durham Regional Police started investigating the man in November after receiving a complaint from one of the families in a Family Court case that involved his testimony.
Sgt. Nancy van Rooy said that so far investigators have determined three families were affected by the bogus shrink testifying in court and Tuesday appealed for any other victims to come forward.

“He was giving testimony as a doctor of psychology, or a psychologist,” van Rooy alleged. “He’s been practising as a doctor of psychology, which would then lead us to believe he has a doctorate in psychology. But he does not have that degree.”

Greg Carter, 63, of Whitby, is charged with three counts of fraud, two counts of obstructing justice and two counts of perjury. He was released with conditions and will be back in court in March. 

According to the College of Psychologists, Carter has been registered since 2001 as a psychological associate, not a psychologist, and has a limited ability to practise in the areas of clinical psychology, counselling psychology and school psychology.

But as an associate, Carter can’t make an independent psychological diagnosis.
Carter didn’t respond to a knock on the door or calls to his Pringle Dr. home or at his Carter Psychology Services office on Dundas St. W. in Whitby. 

A receptionist said he wasn’t in his fourth-floor office on Tuesday.

College registrar Catherine Yarrow explained that psychologists have a doctoral degree in psychology, whereas an associate can be authorized by the college to provide psychological services based on a master’s degree in psychology, plus some experience that meets the college’s criteria.


The college’s records state Carter’s master’s degree came from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education in 1978.

He’s still facing a complaint of professional misconduct under the Psychology Act.
No date has been set for that complaint to go before the college’s disciplinary committee.
In the document posted on the college’s website, two individuals, including a doctor, alleged Carter failed to maintain the standards of professional conduct.

“This failure included making misrepresentations about his credentials, authoring a report based on inadequate information, authoring a report that fell below the standard of care of a reasonably prudent psychological associate, and/or contravening one or more of the standards of professional conduct,” according to the college’s records.

Andrea Maenza, of the Durham Children’s Aid Society, said Carter “is a psychologist in the community” who has been contracted by the society in the past for services like parental capacity assessments.

Maenza said the society was aware a complaint had been filed with the College of Psychologists. 

“We’re kind of in a wait-and-see position,” she said, adding that once the complaint was dealt with, the society would “determine where to go from there.”
Maenza had no response when asked whether the society checks the credentials of the professionals it contracts.

Carter is also listed as a board member of Durham Mental Health Services.

“His involvement is limited to agency governance and strategic direction,” DMHS board president Bill Sims said in a statement. “He has no involvement in the agency’s day-to-day operations or client services and support.”

— With files from Chris Doucette
don.peat@sunmedia.ca

http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/01/26/12624536.html

The Real Loser In The Massachusetts Election

As Obama would say the election was a teachable moment. The arrogant feminist used to privileged deference from the eunuchs surrounding her got her comeuppance.   It was the merging of many factors not the least of which was her cockiness at being anointed the new Lefty Czar of MA to replace Kennedy. Her demeanour came across as someone who would say "Let them eat cake".

I recall the controversy over the court case Phyllis discusses and it gets retold by men who have been involved in MA Family Law which is as stridently feminist in orientation as is the Liberal Left Province of Ontario. Phylis doesn't use the word eunuch when discussing Obama's diversion of stimulus funds to feminist causes and not toward those who were actually unemployed but I will do it for her. There are many of these men in the political classes not to mention the judiciary. This is the so-called Patriarchy that apparently acts as a firewall preventing feminists from reaching past the glass ceiling.  Hmmm... some patriarchy.

Its good to see men finally making a strong difference and voting as a block to rid themselves of a potential  feminist parasite like Coakley who would spread more misandry in Washington.  We can make a difference when we see through the veil of Liberal rhetoric making it sound like they are all inclusive. Poppycock.  Eunuchs get elected to act like chivalrous drones while they get to exercise the levers of power and tax and spend our money. At least with Coakley the veil fell off before it was too late.

This is a monumental victory for common sense and will go down in history as a likely turning point for Obama's reign of power and largess. If he doesn't smarten up he will see his congressional sycophants lose their majority in November and he will be toast in 2012.MJM

Phyllis Schlafly
Tuesday, January 26, 2010


Smarting from their surprise loss in the race to fill the U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, the Democrats are throwing their candidate, Martha Coakley, under the bus. They blame her for running a poor campaign that made losers out of Barack Obama, the Democrats, their bad health care bill and even Ted Kennedy in his grave.

Many reasons, of course, contributed to Scott Brown's remarkable victory. However, the chief reason Coakley's campaign didn't connect with the voters is that she is a feminist, causing even a liberal female TV commentator to admit she is "unappealing."

The feminists for years have had a stranglehold over the Democratic Party, enforcing their rule that every Democratic presidential candidate must pledge his fidelity to abortion with taxpayer funding. But abortion is only the first commandment of feminist ideology, and Coakley revealed much, much more, so let's use her defeat as a teaching moment.

"Martha's a really great candidate for everything that NOW stands for," gushed Christina Knowles, director of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW). Coakley was, indeed, a really great advocate for NOW's feminist ideology, but that did not attract the voters.


It was not so great when Coakley was disdainful about Brown campaigning in the cold outside Fenway Park, the fabled home of the beloved Boston Red Sox. It was not so great when Coakley dismissed one of the biggest Red Sox stars as a "Yankee fan."

Those comments fit the profile of feminists who have contempt for men's sports and therefore have eliminated hundreds of men's teams from college athletic programs under a misinterpretation of Title IX. Howard University even canceled both wrestling and baseball on the same day, giving double pleasure to the hateful feminists.
Boston University is the largest school in Boston, but it no longer has an NCAA baseball team. Nationwide, feminist opposition to anything masculine has forced the elimination of more than 450 wrestling teams.

Coakley insulted people with religious values by declaring that those who oppose abortion probably shouldn't work in emergency rooms because an occasional patient might demand an immediate abortion. Feminists refuse to allow respect for a right of conscience because that might get in the way of their ideology that abortion is women's premier right.

Feminists pretend they want all laws and behavior to be gender-neutral, with identical treatment of male and female (and other genders, whatever they are). But when it comes to domestic violence and child abuse, feminist ideology decrees that men are naturally batterers and women never lie so they don't have to present evidence in order to convict a man.


As prosecutor, Coakley followed this pattern when she insisted on treating a falsely accused man worse than a falsely accused woman. As copiously detailed by Dorothy Rabinowitz in The Wall Street Journal, Coakley persecuted the Amirault family for child abuse even after it became widely recognized that they had been imprisoned on false charges.

Although virtually everyone aware of the Amirault case recognized it to be as preposterous as the false allegation of rape against the Duke lacrosse players, Coakley insisted on continued incarceration of the Amirault brother in contrast with the release of his sister. Coakley insisted that when women are involved in child abuse cases, the real culprit is typically "a primary male offender."

Eventually, the falsely accused man, Gerald Amirault, was released by the extraordinary intervention of the Massachusetts parole board, considered the toughest in the nation. That followed an exhaustive investigation, but Coakley continued to pretend that he was somehow guilty.

Democratic Party leadership has shown that it cannot or will not stand up to the incoherent, man-hating attitude of feminists like Coakley. For example, after they had a tantrum and demanded that the majority of jobs created by Obama's stimulus be given to women (instead of to shovel-ready jobs), even though most of those who lost jobs in this recession are men, President Obama dutifully acquiesced.

It's no wonder that non-college-educated men voted overwhelmingly for Brown against Coakley by a massive 27-point margin. The Democrats are lucky enough to elect some feminists, but feminists are just too unappealing when running against a masculine man such as Brown.

Brown's driving a 2005 GMC pickup truck (which Obama sneered at) symbolized the elitism of Coakley, who drives a foreign car. While Coakley was sipping wine with drug and insurance company PAC representatives, Brown was shaking hands with the voters.


Commentary about Brown's appeal to women is diversionary -- it was male voters who overwhelmingly pulled the lever for him. Men are fed up with the feminist mindset and delivered a clear message in the Massachusetts election: give us a candidate who stands up to the feminists, and we will cross over from Democrat and independent to elect a Republican.


Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2010/01/26/the_real_loser_in_the_massachusetts_election

Judge orders boy, 11, to live with father he hates and hasn't seen for four years

Its easy to see where the sympathies of this paper are given the headline. We never get enough information on the complexities of these cases but it does stand out to me this is a serious case of Parental Alienation. The mom has gone out of her way to deny the dad access and why would a son hate his father so much.   Even an abused child seeks love from the abuser. It appears the mom was playing the odds in that they mostly win in custody battles but it backfired probably because the dad had enough money to stay in the fight.

It will be of great interest to see how the boy thrives - or not.  I suspect as time passes the dad will ensure he has contact with the mom but if it were me I would ensure the 11 year old stays away long enough to remove the programming of hatred.  It is emotionally abusive of the mom to have treated her own flesh and blood to hate the father.MJM

By Jonathan Petre
Last updated at 5:27 PM on 24th January 2010

• Comments (171)

A boy of 11 has been ordered to leave his mother and move more than 100 miles to live with the father he hates.

Appeal Court judges accepted last week that the boy was thriving with his mother, enjoying a life full of activities.

Yet they still ruled that he should live with his father, whom he has not seen for nearly four years.

Experts said the judgment reflected the emphasis the courts were now putting on the role of fathers and on the need for children to have contact with both parents. The boy’s parents split up before he was born and the father has been striving to win access for years.

He works in the City of London, lives in a £1million Stockbroker Belt house,  has remarried and has two more children, who are educated privately.

He said he would also send the boy to private school. The mother, a professional woman, had said she was happy for the boy to have contact with his father – when he was ready to do so.

But the Appeal Court upheld an earlier ruling at Coventry Crown Court, where Judge Clifford Bellamy said he was unconvinced that the mother really wanted contact to resume.

The appeal judges called the boy’s feelings of hate for his father ‘irrational’ and said he would suffer long-term emotional and behavioural problems if they were not reunited.

Judge Bellamy said ‘no stone had been left unturned’ to re-establish contact between father and son, but even indirect attempts through gifts and Christmas cards had failed utterly.

Despite the father being ‘devoted’ to his son, the boy was stubbornly resistant to ever seeing his father again.
The judge added that the mother’s arrangements for the boy to have extra-curricular activities every day of the week left no space for his father, adding: ‘All of this strongly suggests that, in truth, the mother has no real wish to see contact restart.’

Judge Bellamy said she had ‘significant influence and power’ over the boy.

He added that the animosity felt by the boy would quickly disappear once he was living under his father’s roof.

The boy’s guardian, an expert appointed to provide an independent view of his best interests, told the court: ‘I feel pretty ferocious in protecting him. Never have I come across such a strong sense of fighting for a child.’
But the judge said she had become too emotionally involved in the case and lost her sense of objectivity. 

At the appeal, Lord Justice Thorpe said it was the third time recently that the court had upheld properly reasoned decisions in favour of fathers.

Miranda Fisher, of London solicitors Charles Russell, said later that the activities of groups such as Fathers 4 Justice had tipped the balance – and courts were taking a tougher line on parents who denied contact between their children and their ex-partners.

She explained: ‘Twenty or 30 years ago it was not the normal expectation that fathers should be involved in looking after the children. Now more mothers have full-time careers and fathers are increasingly wanting to share in caring.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245603/Judge-orders-boy-11-live-father-hates-seen-years.html#ixzz0dpjfzH5Z