A judge in Britain finds out for himself

The judge, his wife, the injustice
The Sunday Times April 25, 2004
A top legal figure who presides over the family court finds himself the
victim of a bitter divorce - and now realises the system fails fathers, he
tells Margarette Driscoll


Imagine you are a happily married man touching 50. You have a glittering
career, a beautiful wife and two young children. Home is a large, stuccoed
house in a fashionable part of London. Your wife starts a new job and falls
in love with a colleague. In little more than a year, your life falls apart.
You are accused of domestic violence and turfed out of your home of 13
years. You were once a daily part of your children's lives; now you see them
by arrangement. Fraught court hearings leave you exhausted and penniless.
You rely on the kindness of friends for a place to stay.


The whole process leaves you with a broken heart and a burning sense of
injustice: the irony is that you are a judge, presiding in the family
courts. Amazing as it seems, this is the predicament of one of Britain's
most prominent barristers and part-time judges.

The man cannot be named due to the strict rules of secrecy surrounding
family proceedings, but he has decided to speak out because he feels so
strongly about what has happened.

"I cannot believe that somebody like me is so powerless," he says. "Here I
am, a judge, a father, someone who has never lifted a finger to another
human being.

"Yet my wife and her lawyer have been able to run a case against me alleging
domestic violence that has led to the issuing of an injunction against me
with powers of arrest. Can you imagine the humiliation? I had no idea of the
unfairness of the courts until I became involved with them myself."

Groups such as Families Need Fathers and Fathers 4 Justice - some of whose
supporters brought traffic on bridges and motorways to a halt as a protest
at the beginning of February - have been complaining for years that men get
a raw deal in the family courts, as has, very publicly, Bob Geldof.

Accusations of domestic violence are routinely thrown into the pot to
justify barring men from their homes or children. Such a claim is almost
impossible to refute, however glowing one's character references - and the
judge has many, from leading legal figures and from his first wife, who says
she would "vouch for him unhesitatingly".

The government and judiciary recognise that there are problems with the
running of the courts. Earlier this month Mr Justice Munby, one of the
country's most senior family judges, admitted he felt "ashamed" when faced
with a man who had fought for five years, unsuccessfully, to see his
seven-year-old daughter.

A green paper due out this summer is expected to outline proposals for
mediation, which would try to teach divorcing couples to put aside their own
anger and focus on a post-separation plan for themselves and their children.

Family cases are extremely sensitive. If our judge's situation had been
played out in his own court, he hopes he would have asked more questions,
taken more time, tried to get to the heart of the matter. But he admits that
though he knew of the calls for reform within the law over the past few
years, he did not take them seriously enough.

"As a judge you feel that your innate sense of fairness and that of your
colleagues will prevail and that for that reason, the courts must work
reasonably well," he says.

His difficulties began just over a year ago. His wife had been having an
affair for some months and had decided that, after 15 years, their
relationship was over. The judge claims she wanted him to move out. He
refused, partly because he didn't see why he should and partly because he
still loved his wife and did the lion's share of caring for the children.

"I often worked from home so I helped the nanny," he says.

"I would make the beds, do the food shopping, collect the dirty washing and
put a hot meal on the table when she got home.

"This is what is also so hurtful about all this. I belong to a generation of
men who saw their marriage as being part of a team. I helped her build up
her career and played my part in looking after the babies. But she has
behaved like an old-fashioned chauvinist, effectively saying to me: 'I've
found a new man, you've served your purpose, now go away'."

In the early months of last year the relationship became increasingly
strained. His wife frequently spent evenings and weekends with her
boyfriend. In March, while his wife was out for an evening, the judge moved
his belongings out of a spare room and into a self- contained flat in the
house that had been used by the nanny.

His wife "went berserk", he claims, and flew at him, screaming, kicking and
scratching. He held her by the wrists to try to calm her down. The encounter
left bruising. Soon afterwards he received a letter from her solicitor
accusing him of "manhandling" his wife.

A month went by, with relations increasingly frosty. Then, when his wife was
again out for an evening, the doorbell rang. The judge answered and was
handed an an injunction, banning him from certain rooms in his home and
threatening arrest for infringement. His wife and her lawyer had gone to
court on an emergency "without notice" basis, usually reserved for
situations of extreme threat.

The judge knew nothing of the hearing, nor that the injunction was based on
an allegation of domestic violence. "It was surreal," he says. "I had no
knowledge of the hearing and was given no opportunity to defend myself. But
that injunction set the tone for what has happened since. From that day on I
was branded a violent man, even though there is not a shred of evidence that
I have ever been violent to anyone."

Neither a doctor's report, which he believes would have tended to bolster
his case, nor his full written explanation of the incident of "manhandling"
was put before the court. The judge believes this materially affected his
case and has complained to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

"I simply cannot understand how this order was given, other than that it is
true that the family courts react to certain buzzwords," he says. "If it was
me presiding, I like to think I would have asked 'what kind of violence,
when was the last incident, why isn't the husband here?'.

"You are dealing with something that has a devastating impact on someone's
life. I was at a seminar about family law reform a little later and I looked
around at my fellow judges and thought: 'You have the power to have me
arrested'. It was surreal."

He did attend a hearing two weeks later, but the judge hearing the case was
pressed for time and could not hear all the evidence. The next hearing was
cancelled. In all, the case has come before 18 different judges.

In June last year, the judge was ordered to leave his home. He spent the
first night on a sofa in chambers and has since stayed at the homes of loyal
friends.

The irony is that he is still on call to preside over family cases. The next
time he sits at a divorce hearing he will be much more aware of the issues,
he says: "Too many people leave the courts wounded. I will make sure
everyone's voice is heard.

"Not having been through a personal crisis doesn't disqualify you as a
judge, but having been through what I've been through takes your
understanding to a deeper level. The one good thing about all this is that
my experience has sensitised me. I have become a better judge."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...086315,00.html

Nice description of the emotional part of a marriage break-up. Wait until
he gets to the money part and realizes he will be financing his ex's lover
affair and new life with another man.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The judge, his wife, the injustice
The Sunday Times April 25, 2004
A top legal figure who presides over the family court finds himself the
victim of a bitter divorce - and now realises the system fails fathers, he
tells Margarette Driscoll


Imagine you are a happily married man touching 50. You have a glittering
career, a beautiful wife and two young children. Home is a large, stuccoed
house in a fashionable part of London. Your wife starts a new job and
falls
in love with a colleague. In little more than a year, your life falls
apart.
You are accused of domestic violence and turfed out of your home of 13
years. You were once a daily part of your children's lives; now you see
them
by arrangement. Fraught court hearings leave you exhausted and penniless.
You rely on the kindness of friends for a place to stay.


The whole process leaves you with a broken heart and a burning sense of
injustice: the irony is that you are a judge, presiding in the family
courts. Amazing as it seems, this is the predicament of one of Britain's
most prominent barristers and part-time judges.

The man cannot be named due to the strict rules of secrecy surrounding
family proceedings, but he has decided to speak out because he feels so
strongly about what has happened.

"I cannot believe that somebody like me is so powerless," he says. "Here I
am, a judge, a father, someone who has never lifted a finger to another
human being.

"Yet my wife and her lawyer have been able to run a case against me
alleging
domestic violence that has led to the issuing of an injunction against me
with powers of arrest. Can you imagine the humiliation? I had no idea of
the
unfairness of the courts until I became involved with them myself."

Groups such as Families Need Fathers and Fathers 4 Justice - some of whose
supporters brought traffic on bridges and motorways to a halt as a protest
at the beginning of February - have been complaining for years that men
get
a raw deal in the family courts, as has, very publicly, Bob Geldof.

Accusations of domestic violence are routinely thrown into the pot to
justify barring men from their homes or children. Such a claim is almost
impossible to refute, however glowing one's character references - and the
judge has many, from leading legal figures and from his first wife, who
says
she would "vouch for him unhesitatingly".

The government and judiciary recognise that there are problems with the
running of the courts. Earlier this month Mr Justice Munby, one of the
country's most senior family judges, admitted he felt "ashamed" when faced
with a man who had fought for five years, unsuccessfully, to see his
seven-year-old daughter.

A green paper due out this summer is expected to outline proposals for
mediation, which would try to teach divorcing couples to put aside their
own
anger and focus on a post-separation plan for themselves and their
children.

Family cases are extremely sensitive. If our judge's situation had been
played out in his own court, he hopes he would have asked more questions,
taken more time, tried to get to the heart of the matter. But he admits
that
though he knew of the calls for reform within the law over the past few
years, he did not take them seriously enough.

"As a judge you feel that your innate sense of fairness and that of your
colleagues will prevail and that for that reason, the courts must work
reasonably well," he says.

His difficulties began just over a year ago. His wife had been having an
affair for some months and had decided that, after 15 years, their
relationship was over. The judge claims she wanted him to move out. He
refused, partly because he didn't see why he should and partly because he
still loved his wife and did the lion's share of caring for the children.

"I often worked from home so I helped the nanny," he says.

"I would make the beds, do the food shopping, collect the dirty washing
and
put a hot meal on the table when she got home.

"This is what is also so hurtful about all this. I belong to a generation
of
men who saw their marriage as being part of a team. I helped her build up
her career and played my part in looking after the babies. But she has
behaved like an old-fashioned chauvinist, effectively saying to me: 'I've
found a new man, you've served your purpose, now go away'."

In the early months of last year the relationship became increasingly
strained. His wife frequently spent evenings and weekends with her
boyfriend. In March, while his wife was out for an evening, the judge
moved
his belongings out of a spare room and into a self- contained flat in the
house that had been used by the nanny.

His wife "went berserk", he claims, and flew at him, screaming, kicking
and
scratching. He held her by the wrists to try to calm her down. The
encounter
left bruising. Soon afterwards he received a letter from her solicitor
accusing him of "manhandling" his wife.

A month went by, with relations increasingly frosty. Then, when his wife
was
again out for an evening, the doorbell rang. The judge answered and was
handed an an injunction, banning him from certain rooms in his home and
threatening arrest for infringement. His wife and her lawyer had gone to
court on an emergency "without notice" basis, usually reserved for
situations of extreme threat.

The judge knew nothing of the hearing, nor that the injunction was based
on
an allegation of domestic violence. "It was surreal," he says. "I had no
knowledge of the hearing and was given no opportunity to defend myself.
But
that injunction set the tone for what has happened since. From that day on
I
was branded a violent man, even though there is not a shred of evidence
that
I have ever been violent to anyone."

Neither a doctor's report, which he believes would have tended to bolster
his case, nor his full written explanation of the incident of
"manhandling"
was put before the court. The judge believes this materially affected his
case and has complained to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

"I simply cannot understand how this order was given, other than that it
is
true that the family courts react to certain buzzwords," he says. "If it
was
me presiding, I like to think I would have asked 'what kind of violence,
when was the last incident, why isn't the husband here?'.

"You are dealing with something that has a devastating impact on someone's
life. I was at a seminar about family law reform a little later and I
looked
around at my fellow judges and thought: 'You have the power to have me
arrested'. It was surreal."

He did attend a hearing two weeks later, but the judge hearing the case
was
pressed for time and could not hear all the evidence. The next hearing was
cancelled. In all, the case has come before 18 different judges.

In June last year, the judge was ordered to leave his home. He spent the
first night on a sofa in chambers and has since stayed at the homes of
loyal
friends.

The irony is that he is still on call to preside over family cases. The
next
time he sits at a divorce hearing he will be much more aware of the
issues,
he says: "Too many people leave the courts wounded. I will make sure
everyone's voice is heard.

"Not having been through a personal crisis doesn't disqualify you as a
judge, but having been through what I've been through takes your
understanding to a deeper level. The one good thing about all this is that
my experience has sensitised me. I have become a better judge."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...086315,00.html

Nice description of the emotional part of a marriage break-up. Wait until
he gets to the money part and realizes he will be financing his ex's lover
affair and new life with another man.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The judge, his wife, the injustice
The Sunday Times April 25, 2004
A top legal figure who presides over the family court finds himself the
victim of a bitter divorce - and now realises the system fails fathers, he
tells Margarette Driscoll


Imagine you are a happily married man touching 50. You have a glittering
career, a beautiful wife and two young children. Home is a large, stuccoed
house in a fashionable part of London. Your wife starts a new job and
falls
in love with a colleague. In little more than a year, your life falls
apart.
You are accused of domestic violence and turfed out of your home of 13
years. You were once a daily part of your children's lives; now you see
them
by arrangement. Fraught court hearings leave you exhausted and penniless.
You rely on the kindness of friends for a place to stay.


The whole process leaves you with a broken heart and a burning sense of
injustice: the irony is that you are a judge, presiding in the family
courts. Amazing as it seems, this is the predicament of one of Britain's
most prominent barristers and part-time judges.

The man cannot be named due to the strict rules of secrecy surrounding
family proceedings, but he has decided to speak out because he feels so
strongly about what has happened.

"I cannot believe that somebody like me is so powerless," he says. "Here I
am, a judge, a father, someone who has never lifted a finger to another
human being.

"Yet my wife and her lawyer have been able to run a case against me
alleging
domestic violence that has led to the issuing of an injunction against me
with powers of arrest. Can you imagine the humiliation? I had no idea of
the
unfairness of the courts until I became involved with them myself."

Groups such as Families Need Fathers and Fathers 4 Justice - some of whose
supporters brought traffic on bridges and motorways to a halt as a protest
at the beginning of February - have been complaining for years that men
get
a raw deal in the family courts, as has, very publicly, Bob Geldof.

Accusations of domestic violence are routinely thrown into the pot to
justify barring men from their homes or children. Such a claim is almost
impossible to refute, however glowing one's character references - and the
judge has many, from leading legal figures and from his first wife, who
says
she would "vouch for him unhesitatingly".

The government and judiciary recognise that there are problems with the
running of the courts. Earlier this month Mr Justice Munby, one of the
country's most senior family judges, admitted he felt "ashamed" when faced
with a man who had fought for five years, unsuccessfully, to see his
seven-year-old daughter.

A green paper due out this summer is expected to outline proposals for
mediation, which would try to teach divorcing couples to put aside their
own
anger and focus on a post-separation plan for themselves and their
children.

Family cases are extremely sensitive. If our judge's situation had been
played out in his own court, he hopes he would have asked more questions,
taken more time, tried to get to the heart of the matter. But he admits
that
though he knew of the calls for reform within the law over the past few
years, he did not take them seriously enough.

"As a judge you feel that your innate sense of fairness and that of your
colleagues will prevail and that for that reason, the courts must work
reasonably well," he says.

His difficulties began just over a year ago. His wife had been having an
affair for some months and had decided that, after 15 years, their
relationship was over. The judge claims she wanted him to move out. He
refused, partly because he didn't see why he should and partly because he
still loved his wife and did the lion's share of caring for the children.

"I often worked from home so I helped the nanny," he says.

"I would make the beds, do the food shopping, collect the dirty washing
and
put a hot meal on the table when she got home.

"This is what is also so hurtful about all this. I belong to a generation
of
men who saw their marriage as being part of a team. I helped her build up
her career and played my part in looking after the babies. But she has
behaved like an old-fashioned chauvinist, effectively saying to me: 'I've
found a new man, you've served your purpose, now go away'."

In the early months of last year the relationship became increasingly
strained. His wife frequently spent evenings and weekends with her
boyfriend. In March, while his wife was out for an evening, the judge
moved
his belongings out of a spare room and into a self- contained flat in the
house that had been used by the nanny.

His wife "went berserk", he claims, and flew at him, screaming, kicking
and
scratching. He held her by the wrists to try to calm her down. The
encounter
left bruising. Soon afterwards he received a letter from her solicitor
accusing him of "manhandling" his wife.

A month went by, with relations increasingly frosty. Then, when his wife
was
again out for an evening, the doorbell rang. The judge answered and was
handed an an injunction, banning him from certain rooms in his home and
threatening arrest for infringement. His wife and her lawyer had gone to
court on an emergency "without notice" basis, usually reserved for
situations of extreme threat.

The judge knew nothing of the hearing, nor that the injunction was based
on
an allegation of domestic violence. "It was surreal," he says. "I had no
knowledge of the hearing and was given no opportunity to defend myself.
But
that injunction set the tone for what has happened since. From that day on
I
was branded a violent man, even though there is not a shred of evidence
that
I have ever been violent to anyone."

Neither a doctor's report, which he believes would have tended to bolster
his case, nor his full written explanation of the incident of
"manhandling"
was put before the court. The judge believes this materially affected his
case and has complained to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

"I simply cannot understand how this order was given, other than that it
is
true that the family courts react to certain buzzwords," he says. "If it
was
me presiding, I like to think I would have asked 'what kind of violence,
when was the last incident, why isn't the husband here?'.

"You are dealing with something that has a devastating impact on someone's
life. I was at a seminar about family law reform a little later and I
looked
around at my fellow judges and thought: 'You have the power to have me
arrested'. It was surreal."

He did attend a hearing two weeks later, but the judge hearing the case
was
pressed for time and could not hear all the evidence. The next hearing was
cancelled. In all, the case has come before 18 different judges.

In June last year, the judge was ordered to leave his home. He spent the
first night on a sofa in chambers and has since stayed at the homes of
loyal
friends.

The irony is that he is still on call to preside over family cases. The
next
time he sits at a divorce hearing he will be much more aware of the
issues,
he says: "Too many people leave the courts wounded. I will make sure
everyone's voice is heard.

"Not having been through a personal crisis doesn't disqualify you as a
judge, but having been through what I've been through takes your
understanding to a deeper level. The one good thing about all this is that
my experience has sensitised me. I have become a better judge."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...086315,00.html

Nice description of the emotional part of a marriage break-up. Wait until
he gets to the money part and realizes he will be financing his ex's lover
affair and new life with another man.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The judge, his wife, the injustice
The Sunday Times April 25, 2004
A top legal figure who presides over the family court finds himself the
victim of a bitter divorce - and now realises the system fails fathers, he
tells Margarette Driscoll


Imagine you are a happily married man touching 50. You have a glittering
career, a beautiful wife and two young children. Home is a large, stuccoed
house in a fashionable part of London. Your wife starts a new job and
falls
in love with a colleague. In little more than a year, your life falls
apart.
You are accused of domestic violence and turfed out of your home of 13
years. You were once a daily part of your children's lives; now you see
them
by arrangement. Fraught court hearings leave you exhausted and penniless.
You rely on the kindness of friends for a place to stay.


The whole process leaves you with a broken heart and a burning sense of
injustice: the irony is that you are a judge, presiding in the family
courts. Amazing as it seems, this is the predicament of one of Britain's
most prominent barristers and part-time judges.

The man cannot be named due to the strict rules of secrecy surrounding
family proceedings, but he has decided to speak out because he feels so
strongly about what has happened.

"I cannot believe that somebody like me is so powerless," he says. "Here I
am, a judge, a father, someone who has never lifted a finger to another
human being.

"Yet my wife and her lawyer have been able to run a case against me
alleging
domestic violence that has led to the issuing of an injunction against me
with powers of arrest. Can you imagine the humiliation? I had no idea of
the
unfairness of the courts until I became involved with them myself."

Groups such as Families Need Fathers and Fathers 4 Justice - some of whose
supporters brought traffic on bridges and motorways to a halt as a protest
at the beginning of February - have been complaining for years that men
get
a raw deal in the family courts, as has, very publicly, Bob Geldof.

Accusations of domestic violence are routinely thrown into the pot to
justify barring men from their homes or children. Such a claim is almost
impossible to refute, however glowing one's character references - and the
judge has many, from leading legal figures and from his first wife, who
says
she would "vouch for him unhesitatingly".

The government and judiciary recognise that there are problems with the
running of the courts. Earlier this month Mr Justice Munby, one of the
country's most senior family judges, admitted he felt "ashamed" when faced
with a man who had fought for five years, unsuccessfully, to see his
seven-year-old daughter.

A green paper due out this summer is expected to outline proposals for
mediation, which would try to teach divorcing couples to put aside their
own
anger and focus on a post-separation plan for themselves and their
children.

Family cases are extremely sensitive. If our judge's situation had been
played out in his own court, he hopes he would have asked more questions,
taken more time, tried to get to the heart of the matter. But he admits
that
though he knew of the calls for reform within the law over the past few
years, he did not take them seriously enough.

"As a judge you feel that your innate sense of fairness and that of your
colleagues will prevail and that for that reason, the courts must work
reasonably well," he says.

His difficulties began just over a year ago. His wife had been having an
affair for some months and had decided that, after 15 years, their
relationship was over. The judge claims she wanted him to move out. He
refused, partly because he didn't see why he should and partly because he
still loved his wife and did the lion's share of caring for the children.

"I often worked from home so I helped the nanny," he says.

"I would make the beds, do the food shopping, collect the dirty washing
and
put a hot meal on the table when she got home.

"This is what is also so hurtful about all this. I belong to a generation
of
men who saw their marriage as being part of a team. I helped her build up
her career and played my part in looking after the babies. But she has
behaved like an old-fashioned chauvinist, effectively saying to me: 'I've
found a new man, you've served your purpose, now go away'."

In the early months of last year the relationship became increasingly
strained. His wife frequently spent evenings and weekends with her
boyfriend. In March, while his wife was out for an evening, the judge
moved
his belongings out of a spare room and into a self- contained flat in the
house that had been used by the nanny.

His wife "went berserk", he claims, and flew at him, screaming, kicking
and
scratching. He held her by the wrists to try to calm her down. The
encounter
left bruising. Soon afterwards he received a letter from her solicitor
accusing him of "manhandling" his wife.

A month went by, with relations increasingly frosty. Then, when his wife
was
again out for an evening, the doorbell rang. The judge answered and was
handed an an injunction, banning him from certain rooms in his home and
threatening arrest for infringement. His wife and her lawyer had gone to
court on an emergency "without notice" basis, usually reserved for
situations of extreme threat.

The judge knew nothing of the hearing, nor that the injunction was based
on
an allegation of domestic violence. "It was surreal," he says. "I had no
knowledge of the hearing and was given no opportunity to defend myself.
But
that injunction set the tone for what has happened since. From that day on
I
was branded a violent man, even though there is not a shred of evidence
that
I have ever been violent to anyone."

Neither a doctor's report, which he believes would have tended to bolster
his case, nor his full written explanation of the incident of
"manhandling"
was put before the court. The judge believes this materially affected his
case and has complained to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

"I simply cannot understand how this order was given, other than that it
is
true that the family courts react to certain buzzwords," he says. "If it
was
me presiding, I like to think I would have asked 'what kind of violence,
when was the last incident, why isn't the husband here?'.

"You are dealing with something that has a devastating impact on someone's
life. I was at a seminar about family law reform a little later and I
looked
around at my fellow judges and thought: 'You have the power to have me
arrested'. It was surreal."

He did attend a hearing two weeks later, but the judge hearing the case
was
pressed for time and could not hear all the evidence. The next hearing was
cancelled. In all, the case has come before 18 different judges.

In June last year, the judge was ordered to leave his home. He spent the
first night on a sofa in chambers and has since stayed at the homes of
loyal
friends.

The irony is that he is still on call to preside over family cases. The
next
time he sits at a divorce hearing he will be much more aware of the
issues,
he says: "Too many people leave the courts wounded. I will make sure
everyone's voice is heard.

"Not having been through a personal crisis doesn't disqualify you as a
judge, but having been through what I've been through takes your
understanding to a deeper level. The one good thing about all this is that
my experience has sensitised me. I have become a better judge."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...086315,00.html

Nice description of the emotional part of a marriage break-up. Wait until
he gets to the money part and realizes he will be financing his ex's lover
affair and new life with another man.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The judge, his wife, the injustice
The Sunday Times April 25, 2004
A top legal figure who presides over the family court finds himself the
victim of a bitter divorce - and now realises the system fails fathers, he
tells Margarette Driscoll


Imagine you are a happily married man touching 50. You have a glittering
career, a beautiful wife and two young children. Home is a large, stuccoed
house in a fashionable part of London. Your wife starts a new job and
falls
in love with a colleague. In little more than a year, your life falls
apart.
You are accused of domestic violence and turfed out of your home of 13
years. You were once a daily part of your children's lives; now you see
them
by arrangement. Fraught court hearings leave you exhausted and penniless.
You rely on the kindness of friends for a place to stay.


The whole process leaves you with a broken heart and a burning sense of
injustice: the irony is that you are a judge, presiding in the family
courts. Amazing as it seems, this is the predicament of one of Britain's
most prominent barristers and part-time judges.

The man cannot be named due to the strict rules of secrecy surrounding
family proceedings, but he has decided to speak out because he feels so
strongly about what has happened.

"I cannot believe that somebody like me is so powerless," he says. "Here I
am, a judge, a father, someone who has never lifted a finger to another
human being.

"Yet my wife and her lawyer have been able to run a case against me
alleging
domestic violence that has led to the issuing of an injunction against me
with powers of arrest. Can you imagine the humiliation? I had no idea of
the
unfairness of the courts until I became involved with them myself."

Groups such as Families Need Fathers and Fathers 4 Justice - some of whose
supporters brought traffic on bridges and motorways to a halt as a protest
at the beginning of February - have been complaining for years that men
get
a raw deal in the family courts, as has, very publicly, Bob Geldof.

Accusations of domestic violence are routinely thrown into the pot to
justify barring men from their homes or children. Such a claim is almost
impossible to refute, however glowing one's character references - and the
judge has many, from leading legal figures and from his first wife, who
says
she would "vouch for him unhesitatingly".

The government and judiciary recognise that there are problems with the
running of the courts. Earlier this month Mr Justice Munby, one of the
country's most senior family judges, admitted he felt "ashamed" when faced
with a man who had fought for five years, unsuccessfully, to see his
seven-year-old daughter.

A green paper due out this summer is expected to outline proposals for
mediation, which would try to teach divorcing couples to put aside their
own
anger and focus on a post-separation plan for themselves and their
children.

Family cases are extremely sensitive. If our judge's situation had been
played out in his own court, he hopes he would have asked more questions,
taken more time, tried to get to the heart of the matter. But he admits
that
though he knew of the calls for reform within the law over the past few
years, he did not take them seriously enough.

"As a judge you feel that your innate sense of fairness and that of your
colleagues will prevail and that for that reason, the courts must work
reasonably well," he says.

His difficulties began just over a year ago. His wife had been having an
affair for some months and had decided that, after 15 years, their
relationship was over. The judge claims she wanted him to move out. He
refused, partly because he didn't see why he should and partly because he
still loved his wife and did the lion's share of caring for the children.

"I often worked from home so I helped the nanny," he says.

"I would make the beds, do the food shopping, collect the dirty washing
and
put a hot meal on the table when she got home.

"This is what is also so hurtful about all this. I belong to a generation
of
men who saw their marriage as being part of a team. I helped her build up
her career and played my part in looking after the babies. But she has
behaved like an old-fashioned chauvinist, effectively saying to me: 'I've
found a new man, you've served your purpose, now go away'."

In the early months of last year the relationship became increasingly
strained. His wife frequently spent evenings and weekends with her
boyfriend. In March, while his wife was out for an evening, the judge
moved
his belongings out of a spare room and into a self- contained flat in the
house that had been used by the nanny.

His wife "went berserk", he claims, and flew at him, screaming, kicking
and
scratching. He held her by the wrists to try to calm her down. The
encounter
left bruising. Soon afterwards he received a letter from her solicitor
accusing him of "manhandling" his wife.

A month went by, with relations increasingly frosty. Then, when his wife
was
again out for an evening, the doorbell rang. The judge answered and was
handed an an injunction, banning him from certain rooms in his home and
threatening arrest for infringement. His wife and her lawyer had gone to
court on an emergency "without notice" basis, usually reserved for
situations of extreme threat.

The judge knew nothing of the hearing, nor that the injunction was based
on
an allegation of domestic violence. "It was surreal," he says. "I had no
knowledge of the hearing and was given no opportunity to defend myself.
But
that injunction set the tone for what has happened since. From that day on
I
was branded a violent man, even though there is not a shred of evidence
that
I have ever been violent to anyone."

Neither a doctor's report, which he believes would have tended to bolster
his case, nor his full written explanation of the incident of
"manhandling"
was put before the court. The judge believes this materially affected his
case and has complained to the Law Society and the Bar Council.

"I simply cannot understand how this order was given, other than that it
is
true that the family courts react to certain buzzwords," he says. "If it
was
me presiding, I like to think I would have asked 'what kind of violence,
when was the last incident, why isn't the husband here?'.

"You are dealing with something that has a devastating impact on someone's
life. I was at a seminar about family law reform a little later and I
looked
around at my fellow judges and thought: 'You have the power to have me
arrested'. It was surreal."

He did attend a hearing two weeks later, but the judge hearing the case
was
pressed for time and could not hear all the evidence. The next hearing was
cancelled. In all, the case has come before 18 different judges.

In June last year, the judge was ordered to leave his home. He spent the
first night on a sofa in chambers and has since stayed at the homes of
loyal
friends.

The irony is that he is still on call to preside over family cases. The
next
time he sits at a divorce hearing he will be much more aware of the
issues,
he says: "Too many people leave the courts wounded. I will make sure
everyone's voice is heard.

"Not having been through a personal crisis doesn't disqualify you as a
judge, but having been through what I've been through takes your
understanding to a deeper level. The one good thing about all this is that
my experience has sensitised me. I have become a better judge."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...086315,00.html

Bob Whiteside wrote:
Nice description of the emotional part of a marriage break-up. Wait
until he gets to the money part and realizes he will be financing his
ex's lover affair and new life with another man.

I liked the parts where he would like to think he would have been
"fairer" to others in his court. I seriously doubt it. If he was as
truly shocked and clueless that these things happen as he says he was,
then he was just like all the others. I do feel for the guy, but maybe
it needs to happen to him and a few others so that they will know
exactly what it is they're doing *TO* others.

--
Always borrow money from a pessimist, he doesn't expect to be paid back.
~Author Unknown

Bob Whiteside wrote:
Nice description of the emotional part of a marriage break-up. Wait
until he gets to the money part and realizes he will be financing his
ex's lover affair and new life with another man.

I liked the parts where he would like to think he would have been
"fairer" to others in his court. I seriously doubt it. If he was as
truly shocked and clueless that these things happen as he says he was,
then he was just like all the others. I do feel for the guy, but maybe
it needs to happen to him and a few others so that they will know
exactly what it is they're doing *TO* others.

--
Always borrow money from a pessimist, he doesn't expect to be paid back.
~Author Unknown

Bob Whiteside wrote:
Nice description of the emotional part of a marriage break-up. Wait
until he gets to the money part and realizes he will be financing his
ex's lover affair and new life with another man.

I liked the parts where he would like to think he would have been
"fairer" to others in his court. I seriously doubt it. If he was as
truly shocked and clueless that these things happen as he says he was,
then he was just like all the others. I do feel for the guy, but maybe
it needs to happen to him and a few others so that they will know
exactly what it is they're doing *TO* others.

--
Always borrow money from a pessimist, he doesn't expect to be paid back.
~Author Unknown

Bob Whiteside wrote:
Nice description of the emotional part of a marriage break-up. Wait
until he gets to the money part and realizes he will be financing his
ex's lover affair and new life with another man.

I liked the parts where he would like to think he would have been
"fairer" to others in his court. I seriously doubt it. If he was as
truly shocked and clueless that these things happen as he says he was,
then he was just like all the others. I do feel for the guy, but maybe
it needs to happen to him and a few others so that they will know
exactly what it is they're doing *TO* others.

--
Always borrow money from a pessimist, he doesn't expect to be paid back.
~Author Unknown

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The judge, his wife, the injustice
The Sunday Times April 25, 2004
A top legal figure who presides over the family court finds himself the
victim of a bitter divorce - and now realises the system fails fathers, he
tells Margarette Driscoll

[snip]

You know, I hate to say it, but since this judge was a part of the system
designed to destroy families, I can't feel for him.

All I can say is, it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Now perhaps
fathers in the UK will have at least one sympathetic judge... maybe..