A person with Parental Responsibility has the right to a say in any decisions regarding the child to do with their upbringing such are where they live, where they go to school, what medical treatment they receive. It also gives the right to contact with the child if they are not living with them.

CAFCASS, the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service, are supposed to put children first in the Family Courts but all too often their reports are inaccurate and strongly biased towards the father. When they speak to the children, their views are often ignored or put down to coaching by the mother. Even when abuse is proved, some form of contact is recommended and this is expected to increase over time. When a CAFCASS report is submitted to court, the court usually merely accepts the recommendations and does not listen to the evidence given by the ‘emotional’ mother.

When a relationship ends, the children become the only means an abusive father has to continue the abuse of his ex partner and continue to control her. Caring for the child is not the main motivation of the father for wanting contact. Research has also shown that as the father continues to abuse the mother, the risk of abusing the child increases. Because these abusive fathers put their own selfish needs before those of the child they will insist on contact even when the child is obviously frightened of them.

Abusive fathers are far more likely to try and get residency than non-abusive fathers. This is not only so that they can continue the abuse but for financial reasons and distorted views of their own and their ex-partner’s parenting abilities.

There are several ways in which an abusive father will continue abuse after separation which involve the children. These can include how they shape the children’s view of their mother, they don’t give the children routine, supervision, safety and care, and they are competitive with the mother and force the children to withdraw from, reject, harass or abuse their mother. They like to have financial control over the mother by withholding joint money or child support or barter contact against financial assets or child support. They also threaten to or apply for increased contact or residency.

This continued abuse and control can cause severe psychological distress for the mother and the children and undermine the mother’s ability to be the best parent she can and weakens the children’s relationship with the parent who can best meet their needs. Women forced to share care with emotionally abusive and controlling ex partners suffer from stress and the physical symptoms can be very debilitating and affect the mother’s care of the children. These problems are not seen or ignored by the professionals and the courts and law makers.

Because the courts act on the presumption that contact with both parents is in the best interests of the child even when there is a history of abuse, they almost always impose contact orders. In 2004 in cases where the resident parent opposed contact because of ‘serious welfare issues’, most of which involved allegations of domestic violence and child abuse, staying or unsupervised contact was granted in 60% of the cases.

Emotional abuse is the most common form of abuse to be reported, and the most damaging. However, it leaves no trace and, as it usually takes place in private, no evidence so it is easy for professionals to ignore it. Court orders supporting contact between the children and the father are made frequently by the courts which disregard the mother’s concerns for her own and the children’s safety. In a review of over 300 cases in 2008 where the non resident father was applying for contact, the mother raised serious welfare issues in 63% of the cases but direct contact was only refused in 21% of these cases.

When a couple separate, the father is probably in paid employment whilst the mother will either be not working or working part time in a low paid job. This makes her very vulnerable. Financial abuse may have occurred during the relationship and continued or increased after separation. Financial issues are supposed to be totally separate from contact issues but the number of nights that the child stays with each parent means that the father can cut down the amount of child support he pays and may even be able to get the child centred benefits instead of the mother meaning more financial abuse of the mother. Financial abuse should be considered as bad as rape with a relationship and should be of considerable concern to the courts.

Men and women’s parenting skills are judged by very different standards. Professionals ignore men’s lack of parenting skills and scrutinise the mother’s in great detail. Fathers should have to prove that they are capable of responsible parenting before contact is granted. Even where the father is abusive, professionals say that it is the woman who needs to change.

For shared parenting to be successful, the parents need to trust, respect and communicate with each other. They must both be committed to it for shared parenting to work. It is obvious that parents who end up in court are the parents for whom shared parenting has already failed. Enforced orders cannot make parents trust each other, so are more likely to cause distress to the children and the primary care giver.

The coping strategy of children to abuse can cause them to reject their mother. They can emotionally distance themselves from their mother and apparently form a closer bond with the abusive parent. Children can side with their father and can join in with the abuse of their mother to help them to cope. They can express anger and aggression towards her. They can also be so scared of punishment that they do not dare to tell anybody about the abuse.

Continuing contact with both parents is only one of many factors which contribute to good outcomes for children. The well being of the child’s primary care giver is inseparable from the needs of the children. The rights of some parents to have contact with their children are being put before the children’s need for safety. Courts very often do not take mother’s concerns seriously. The women are either not believed or the risk to the mother and children is not understood. Shouldn’t it be obvious that the women who has lived with an abuser for many years knows his capacity for abuse far better than a court that sees him for only a few hours?