All we need to have happen in the Family Court is for the Court to accept ‘only’ corroborated evidence.

No other Court in the land….well maybe with the exception of the Employment Court….accepts uncorroborated ‘testimony’ as irrefragible fact.

Interestingly, the only other law-process which brings an evil to one before one has actually committed a real offence, are those governing traffic.

The entire point of traffic laws is to keep vehicles separated; that’s it. A person speeding (although breaking a law) and who never has an accident, cannot be said to be a danger ‘until’ he/she has a crash. My opinion is that at that point, and only at that point, should the book be flung at the malefactor.

And so it equates with the Family Court when it accepts a father ‘may’ be a risk, when it has failed to attract any corroborated evidence that he ‘is’ a risk.

If the father has abused a child in some way which is definable within the concept of abuse, as opposed to some woolly concept tossed up by some shrink, or some opinion of the ungifted who hover round the edges of this system, then sling the book at him.

But until the abuse can be proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, then no court should be allowed to weight the accusation.

Further, a partner who is abusive (and I mean seriously physically abussive) to his partner should have the book thrown at him, but it does not presuppose he ‘will’ be abussive to his children.

The French Dude who head-butted the Italian player should be tried for assault, but his head-butt of another player does not, automatically, presume he is either a bad partner or father.

I truly believe the prime target for all of us is to have the Family Court controlled to the point where ‘only’ corroborated evidence is acceptable. Opinion, uncorroborated accusations, and assertions must all be treated with complete contempt.

That, it seems to me, should be our prime target.

Cheers
David.