"Family Law" anyone?

[never confuse the law with justice or what is sensible]

"In the best interests of the child(ren)"?

Utter crap. If you have been following any of the family law matters over the last dozen years you will know how the trite "in the best interest.... " phrase is trotted out in the most perverse arguments to attempt to justify utterly ridiculously and awful decisions.

Consider for a moment a scenario where somebody (lets make it a female with a child, so as to get the "natural sympathy") breaks in to another person's home (lets make it that of a work at home widow bringing up children so as to even the sympathy) and destroys all the possessions in the house so that the widow loses her livelihood and savings. Perhaps the intruder burns the house down destroying the children's possessions as well. Eventually she is caught (perhaps having done something similar to another family). Can you not just see how it would play out in court with the "experts"? Of course it is in the interest of the criminal's child that the criminal is not punished, but how can it be in the interests of the widow's children? or those other families that she has attacked? Any rational person will understand that it is not in the interest of children in general that the woman be let off free, yet that is what happens throughout the british isles on a daily basis. Bringing false accusations, emotionally harming children by removing their other parent under false pretense and mentally and/or physically abusing them until they have been prepared for interview is CHILD ABUSE. The Children's Service not only condones but actively encourages mothers down this path. If these crimes were treated with the slightest degree of mental rigor then I suspect the desire of a potential perpetrator to run these strategies against a partner would rapidly diminish.

"No fault" divorce

Can there ever be such a thing as a no-fault divorce? Think about it for a moment please. Is there such a thing as a no-fault burglary or no-fault murder? If a marriage fails then it must fail for a reason. In a handful of cases there might truly be equal fault but absolutely no fault? I hardly think so. Think about it again since if there is NO fault then surely there should be NO consequences for the defendant/respondent since they have committed NO offence. It is the legal profession that is pushing this weird idea on to the public, I am not aware that there has been any public debate in parliament and precious little mention in the media, there seems to be a coven that is introducing it by stealth. Effectively they are bringing about the destruction of families as a matter of routine, perhaps they should prepare laws to deal with a "no-fault marriage", or perhaps submit proposals for a law which enables a fixed term "cohabitation with potential production of children" contract so that everyone has a better idea of what they are getting into.

IF, after careful consideration, you really believe that "no fault divorce" is the way to proceed there is just one further aspect that should be embodied in that process:

No fault means that the marriage contract and family is being broken on a whim and there is no rational reason why the contract should be annulled. The person who breaks the family by applying for the no fault divorce therefore abandons her/his spouse, children (if any) and the matrimonial home and thus the law should ensure that they have NO CLAIM WHATSOEVER or rights over the spouse, the children and the matrimonial home, they get out and do not interfere.





and regardless as to whether you might want to follow through any of the his other paragraphs I think that Mr. Hafen's comments on "No Fault Divorce and the Lost Plot" is worth your time reading