The Judgement of Solomon
 1 FLR 669
A v A (MINORS) (SHARED RESIDENCE ORDER)
Court of Appeal
Butler-Sloss LJ and Connel J
3 February 1994
The above Judgement is on the Internet.
For a copy (8pp), send a s.a.e. to
Ivor Catt, Editor, Ill Eagle.
Recent research on outcome shows that using any criterion - for instance criminality, death, truanting, teenage pregnancy, drug use, and excluding poverty as a variable - the outcome for a child cut off from its father is two or three times worse than if it is not. Further, the outcome for a child cut off from its father is worse than that if it is cut off from its mother.
In our High Court, a number of decisions (e.g. Thorpe 29july99, see Ill Eagle 4, p1, Times, 6aug99,) have been made such that experts familiar with this research are excluded from our family courts, and their verbal or written testimony is not allowed.
There is no funding for Home Office research to compare outcome after a shared residence order and a single residence order. No such research has been done by Government agencies, or made available to Court Welfare Officers or to judges.
Butler-Sloss has no knowledge of the independent research by leading experts in this field. She does not know that the training of our Court Welfare Officers is minimal, and that they are in fact Probation Officers trained to deal with delinquent children, not trained to deal with children of divorce.
Butler-Sloss is the most senior woman judge in England.
This judgement demonstrates that our judges will ignore legislation, including the Children Act 1989, and any further legislation on family matters passed during the next fifteen years. Once the judges' verbiage is stripped away, it is a clear declaration of defiance of Parliament, and a declaration of the supremacy of judges. This is the final destination of Denning's reforms of our legal system (see "The Hook and the Sting" on my website www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/ ); a judiciary totally out of control. Denning realised that he was giving much more power to the judiciary. For this reason, he always said that his courts would have to be open to the public, including courts dealing with children, in order to keep judges in control. However, these judges act in secret, in secret courts where witnesses are excluded, where expert witnesses are not allowed and their written testimony is not allowed, and where reporting of cases is only allowed with names removed.
A short form summary of the case is that, using s 1 (1) of the 1989 Act, ".... treating the child's welfare as the court's paramount consideration...." (Connel p 673), the rest of the Act, for instance s 11(4) can be ignored by senior judges with impunity. Further, they will threaten the end of promotion to junior judges who persist in carrying out the wishes of Parliament through its 1989 Act; ".... the judges .... It is for him alone to make that decision. However, a shared residence order would, in my view, be unlikely to be made ...." - Sloss p677.
Note that the mantra ".... the child's welfare as the court's paramount consideration...." is already used to have secret courts, with expert witnesses and witnesses in general excluded. This mantra is seen here to be used by our most senior judges to ignore the law. An Act of Parliament which has as preamble "the interests of the children comes first" can be ignored. The judge merely uses her subjective judgement as to what is in the interests of the children, and makes judgements and issues court orders on that basis. It matters not what is the further content of the Act. Sloss clearly used the preamble to overrule the rest of the Act.
However, the misconduct by our judiciary goes further and deeper. It is mainly the result of the selection process instituted by Denning during the decades when he appointed judges. Sloss is just one result, and we can see that her sluggish intellect would not be able to discern whether she was defying parliament or not. We are too far gone down the Denning slide into the final Denning quagmire. Sloss could well come from making her judgement on 3feb94 with no feeling of guilt or sleight of hand. However, with our sharper intellects, and our greater honesty, we can see her misconduct, and that of Connell. They use Acts of Parliaments as mere grist to their mill, to be chewed up along with prior, overruled, precedent, Home Office Guidance Notes, and other incidentals which our elected representatives try in vain to countermand.
Connell p672 of 3feb94;
Counsel relied upon that case, and in particular upon the passage in the judgement of Purchas LJ, when submitting that a shared residence order should only be made in exceptional circumstances.
Ivor Catt 13june99
The Secretary of State for Health's instruction to doctors was that Viagra was only to be prescribed "in exceptional circumstances".
On 27may99, The Times reported that the Court of Appeal lambasted the Secretary of State for Health, Frank Dobson, for use of the term "in exceptional circumstances" without defining these "exceptional circumstance", the Court saying that because of this failure, it was in fact a ban on Viagra.
The 1989 Children Act made Shared Parenting the preferred option after divorce.
Just before the Children Act 1989 came into force, the Department of Health issued a circular which instructed courts to make shared parenting/residence only "in exceptional circumstances".
Unknown, grey bureaucrats then issued a ban. The very small number of cases which end in a Shared Residence Order has been falling rapidly since 1989.
This experience reinforces my view, that what the Family Courts do during the next fifteen years of deepening crisis will be totally unaffected by any legislation enacted by Parliament.
There is a crucial difference between a shared parenting order and an order giving contact for the father. The former cannot be defied by the mother. Defiance would be kidnapping. The latter are routinely defied, and two high court judgements have established that a mother who defies a court order re contact will not be punished. (The interests of the children come first. The mother might, if forced to co-operate, take vengeance against the child. Therefore courts must not enforce court orders re access since the interests of the children come first.) As a result, Home Office (mid 1998) estimates are that 20% of children in this country have lost all contact with their fathers. (In a Home Office report on the Home Office website.)
The perniciousness of the judges' attitude goes further. Since shared parenting creates equality of parenting, there is then no justification for ousting a father from the family home after the mother has gone off with her gigolo. (This is routinely done in the case of a single residence order plus contact.) The family property, including the home, goes with the child, which in the case of single residence means it goes to the mother. (Lord Scarman said, "I would not cut the umbilical cord.") Thus, single residence means a home with the mother, not the father, installed. Thus, the decision by Sloss to ban shared parenting orders feeds directly into the dramatic collapse of the marriage rate and remarriage rate, and the collapse in birth rate, particularly the legitimate birth rate. A ban on shared parenting orders, imposed on lesser judges by Sloss (3feb94 p677), ".... be unlikely to be made....", is the reason for the ending of marriage as the normal state in society. It means that a man who marries loses all his assets and loses all his children. This has led to the statement in "Marriage and Fatherhood; Important Information for Young Men" by The Cheltenham Group 1998, ISBN 1 900080 05 2, p45;
One simple piece of advice is not to get married,
It appears that what Connell calls "the Lord Justice" first introduced the idea of "exceptional circumstances", taking his lead from HMSO 1991 Guidance and Regulations, which of course should have effected, not frustrated, the intentions of Acts of Parliament. Here, clearly, HMSO sets out to frustrate the intent of Parliament in 1989 to, as Sloss says on p677, overrule Riley v Riley. Sloss correctly says judges are not bound by HMSO guidance, but she proceeds to follow them in defiance of what she herself states is the intention of Parliament in the new 1989 Act; ".... the disapproval of a joint custody order .... Riley v Riley ..... can no longer be good law and has .... been overruled by the statute."
We see her motivation later, p677; ".... implications of the Children Act. But.... the wisdom of the past .... children's problems have not changed .... the problems still arise although this court is now bound by statute."
Sloss does not know that her "experts", the Court Welfare Officers, are virtually untrained and ignorant of the outcome of their recommendations to the court. Outcome has never been researched. Sloss thinks her ignorant CWOs, appointed by lawyers, have more wisdom and experience than our elected representatives in Parliament, who are doing their best to introduce shared parenting via statute, which she is frustrating. There is a massive backlog of official complaints, totalling more than 100, against Court Welfare Officers in London. In any case, even were the wisdom of appointed CWOs greater than that of our elected representatives, in our democracy it is unconstitutional for Sloss to subvert the intentions of our Members of Parliament as expressed in Statute, just because she (as it happens wrongly) believes that the CWOs know best. (They are abysmally untrained, ignorant and prejudiced, all minimally trained to a radical feminist agenda in a private training institution in Birmingham. Details of training are kept secret, but the budget and duration of training are minute.)
Sloss does not even know that there has never been research by the Home Office as to outcome for children resulting from single residence orders as compared with shared residence orders. She does not know that research done elsewhere is not known by our most senior CWOs, and that in any case they hold that such research would be irrelevant.
Ivor Catt 1july99.
The Daily Telegraph nov99:
Gay, and sad
The Lewisham social services appear to have taken leave of their senses. Dismayed that a two-year-old boy has been sharing a room with an older boy, they have planned his removal from his foster parents, the one home that he has known all his life, and will be handing him to a homosexual couple with the aim of adoption. There is no suggestion that the boy had been maltreated. From what we know, he was well attached to his foster mother, father and siblings. It was simply enough that he was sharing a room, however innocently, with an older boy. When The Daily Telegraph contacted Lewisham for its comments, its immediate reaction was to threaten an injunction. Repeated assurances to its legal department that the paper had no intention whatsoever of identifying the boy or his foster family fell on deaf ears. By 8pm it was attempting to persuade Mr Justice Wall to prevent publication of the story.
Whether or not the social services are justified in presuming that sexual abuse is rife in foster homes, this is not alleged in this case, and it is surely peculiar that they should seek a homosexual couple for remedy. Only married couples are allowed to adopt. There is no provision under English law for cohabiting men to adopt jointly. When it occurs, it is surreptitious. Only one of the men is listed as the official parent, so that the adoption can be falsely categorised as a single-father case. The courts are now acquiescing in this ruse. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss,. President of the High Court's Family Division, appeared to endorse it last month when she praised the "increasing number of cases where a child is cared for by parents of the same sex". The law has been stretched beyond the intent of Parliament by judicial activists with an ideological agenda.
Indeed, the law hardly seems to count when it conflicts with homosexual activists' demands for further privileges. London health authorities are violating Section 28 of the Local Government Act by offering a guide to the etiquette of "cruising and cottaging" - encouraging homosexual acts with strangers in public lavatories. The Prison Service is being stymied in its efforts to enforce its ban on homosexual activity because a judge has ruled that prison officers must provide condoms to gay prisoners.
One might be forgiven for thinking that the law treats homosexuality as a "normal" and "valid" alternative to heterosexuality. It does not. The 1967 Sexual Offences Act, which offered a defence for the practice, none the less did not legalise it. For the militant homosexual groups, however, tolerance is not enough. They demand active approval and insist on debilitating the institution of marriage in their fury to break down all barriers. What is reprehensible is that so much of Labour's governing class is willing to play along. - Editorial, Daily Telegraph, 13nov99
[One thing to notice is the linking of homosexuals with attack on the family with Labour govt. This points to an alliance between homosexuals and anti-family radical feminists, both of whom are heavily represented in Vanity Blair's Cabinet.]
Secret in the interests of whom?
"Charles Moore, the editor of The Daily Telegraph, said: 'We welcome the judge's refusal to impose an injunction on us and do not understand Lewisham council's attempts to obstruct a proper resolution if the issue. While we absolutely agree with, and insist on, the need to handle stories of this nature sensitively, it is imperative that local aothorities and others [judges? - Ed] should not be able to avoid public scrutiny by sheltering behind laws designed to protect children.'" - 13nov99, p7
Cleveland Judge Sex Scandal
By John Lisners in Nairobi, Kenya Dame's randy spouse frolics with vice girls Sunday People, July 17, 1988 The husband of Cleveland inquiry judge Dame Elilzabeth Butler-Sloss cheats on her with young black prostitutes. While SHE was in Cleveland, HE was picking up tarts in one of the world's highest-risk AIDS areas. Joseph Butler-Sloss, a High Court judge working in Nairobi, Kenya, has confessed that he regularly pays for sex with local hookers. His Honour, 61, who has been married to Dame Elizabeth for 30 years, admitted: "I rather like prostitutes. I like them in England and I like them here. "You pay your money and you get what you want. There is no humbug. They are some of the most honest people you meet. "They are very nice. They treat you well." Butler-Sloss, a former Midlands circuit judge, was appointed to the Kenya High Court in 1984. "I don't get lonely for my wife," he said. "She comes here on holidays at Christmas and Easter. "I'll go on until I'm rumbled. I love the weather and the lifestyle." His wife Dame Elizabeth, 54, is Britain's first and only woman Appeal Court Judge. She is the sister of former Attorney General Lord Havers, TV cad Nigel's father. She was appointed to head the Cleveland child abuse probe by Health Minister Tony Newton with the full backing of Mrs. Thatcher. The Premier is one of her greatest admirers. Dame Elizabeth lives at the marital home, a farmhouse in six acres near Exeter, where her hunting husband served as joint master of the East Devon Foxhounds. The couple - who have two grown-up sons and a daughter - also own a London flat. Over curried-chicken lunch in the Kenyan capital, the white-haired judge admitted paying for sex at Nairobi's notorious Starlight Club. He confessed in a taped conversation: "It's not really the done thing for judges to be seen in TURN TO PAGE 2