This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/08/man-who-bombarded-officials-with-abuse-barred-from-applying-for-child-contact

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 2 Version 3
Man who ‘bombarded’ officials with abuse barred from applying for child contact Man who ‘bombarded’ officials with abuse barred from applying for child contact
(32 minutes later)
Man targeted solicitor and court staff over months, says judge in what is believed to be first ruling of its kindMan targeted solicitor and court staff over months, says judge in what is believed to be first ruling of its kind
A judge has banned a man from applying for contact with his child for a year after he “bombarded” court officials with abusive messages.A judge has banned a man from applying for contact with his child for a year after he “bombarded” court officials with abusive messages.
The landmark ruling, thought to be the first of its kind, means the man, known as Mr B, can only make an application for a new hearing in the next 12 months if he first obtains permission from the judge.The landmark ruling, thought to be the first of its kind, means the man, known as Mr B, can only make an application for a new hearing in the next 12 months if he first obtains permission from the judge.
In a transcript of the ruling handed down at the central family court in London, Judge Lynn Roberts said that while the welfare of Child P was her “paramount consideration”, “over many months his father, Mr B, has bombarded the mother’s solicitor and others at the same firm, His Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service staff, CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) and the mother’s local authority with many, many abusive messages”. In a transcript of the ruling handed down at the central family court in London, Judge Lynn Roberts said that while the welfare of Child P was her “paramount consideration”, “over many months his father, Mr B, has bombarded the mother’s solicitor and others at the same firm, His Majesty’s Court and Tribunal Service staff, Cafcass (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) and the mother’s local authority with many, many abusive messages”.
“My staff are distressed by the emails and the mother’s solicitors have instituted civil proceedings against him,” she added. “It is unreasonable for any member of the court staff or any professional to have to deal with him in the light of his behaviour to them.” She added: “My staff are distressed by the emails and the mother’s solicitors have instituted civil proceedings against him.
“It is unreasonable for any member of the court staff or any professional to have to deal with him in the light of his behaviour to them.”
In a case where domestic violence has been alleged and a non-molestation order put in place against the father, Roberts said his behaviour had been intended to cause stress and upset. Mr B had also been posting abusive material about the mother and her family on social media.In a case where domestic violence has been alleged and a non-molestation order put in place against the father, Roberts said his behaviour had been intended to cause stress and upset. Mr B had also been posting abusive material about the mother and her family on social media.
The father’s behaviour had continued despite Roberts warning him in previous hearings that she was considering dismissing his application, in part because of “the type and level of abuse emanating from Mr B”.The father’s behaviour had continued despite Roberts warning him in previous hearings that she was considering dismissing his application, in part because of “the type and level of abuse emanating from Mr B”.
Roberts said she did not believe it was safe for Child P to spend time with his father “when he refers to P’s mother and her family in such appalling terms because it seems to me inevitable that Mr B would behave in such a way in P’s presence. Roberts said she did not believe it was safe for Child P to spend time with his father “when he refers to P’s mother and her family in such appalling terms because it seems to me inevitable that Mr B would behave in such a way in P’s presence”.
“I must also take into account that it would not be reasonable to expect any professional to play any part in Mr B’s contact because of the abuse that they would likely receive,” she added. She added: “I must also take into account that it would not be reasonable to expect any professional to play any part in Mr B’s contact because of the abuse that they would likely receive.”
The ruling was welcomed by Lucy Hadley, head of policy at Women’s Aid. “Far too often we see abusers present as charming, and able to manipulate professionals in child contact proceedings. In this case there was simply no ambiguity about the behaviour of the abuser and the harm it causes – not only to the family but to the wider network of professionals and court staff he interacted with.” The ruling was welcomed by Lucy Hadley, head of policy at Women’s Aid. “Far too often we see abusers present as charming, and able to manipulate professionals in child contact proceedings.
“In this case there was simply no ambiguity about the behaviour of the abuser and the harm it causes – not only to the family but to the wider network of professionals and court staff he interacted with.”
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS union, also welcomed the ruling: “This case highlights the conditions under which our court staff members work and the abuse they all too often face while carrying out their professional duties.Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS union, also welcomed the ruling: “This case highlights the conditions under which our court staff members work and the abuse they all too often face while carrying out their professional duties.
“We welcome the comments by Judge Roberts and we hope it sends a clear message to all court users that such behaviour will not be tolerated.”“We welcome the comments by Judge Roberts and we hope it sends a clear message to all court users that such behaviour will not be tolerated.”