It is this desire by a local authority department to exert control and to bury an individual’s right to a family that first brought me into the arena that I now fight in. It was the local authority trying to impose their dictatorial control over a new mother that was directly responsible for my involvement.
At first I thought it can’t be this bad! My reaction was the same as many I have experienced since “No they can’t do this can they?” As time progressed I was to get a serious wake up call. Yes they can and do. Not only was it bad, it got worse as time went one.
The arena that the fight takes place is laughingly called “Family Court”. The adherence to any semblance of family or family values is the last thing you will find in this system. In the arena of this system where there two sets of rules, the family has to follow one set. Their rules are fixed and rigid. The other side in this combat field is the local authority. Their rules are totally different. They are allowed to move the goalposts when it looks as if the family will score a victory. They, the local authority, are allowed to lie and cheat in the knowledge that no one will stop them. They form with a like minded group of solicitors, barristers and expert witnesses who will touch forelock and hold out their large caps to collect the ill gotten gains being offered. They line up to take their prebooked seats on the gravy train as it leaves the station. The local authority has no rigidity applied to their method of operation. The law states that both parties operate under the same rules, however, the local authority just ignore that and operate as they see fit.
In the family case I have been involved with against a local authority, they have acted to impose tyrannical control over the proceedings. This has been at the expense of the application of common sense and empathic understanding. In their rush to control the situation they have used the aforementioned statistical information to try and enhance their case.
This has been supported by the constant changing of conditions, the application of misinformation, or in layman’s terms lies, and the blind adherence to the rule book. No rule book ever written can cover all eventualities. The old adage holds true in this situation, ‘The rule book is written for the adherence of fools and the guidance of wise men’. In this case the latter seems to be in very short supply when one is dealing with the local authority. There was a high degree of self interest in that they offered nothing but garbled and incomplete evidence. This avoided logical argument and sought to influence any verdict and hid their true intentions from their victims.
The local authority employed professional experts in many disciplines to give results that they try to convince us to be independent. However, these ‘experts’ are subject to the instructions of their paymasters and as such cannot be termed independent in the true sense. The information fed to these experts by the local authority is tainted and never investigated as to its veracity. When the expert’s income depends on their compliance with their paymaster’s demands there is no profit for the expert to carry out a deep investigation to find where the truth resides. The instructions of the local authority enforcers are paramount.
The expert’s ability to question properly is destroyed by a system designed to discourage honesty. The local authorities supply these experts with information that can only have one eventual outcome. The result the authority requires is controlled by the questions they ask. These questions are designed and based to give the classic Procrustean Solution.