- This topic has 21 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Good question, The fate of Henry and Jack has been worrying me since Friday. I was not as convinced as some that this story would die down once the trial was over, I think it is only just beginning……
I was wondering the same thing, why would she even have to hand Henry back at the end of his scheduled visit on Sunday? She could do what Rob did and keep him? I guess the answer is that Pat, Tony and Helen will be very wary of doing anything that might be frowned upon in the family court prior to the hearing, is that tonight?
Spectacularly genius question, which explains why this non-genius didn’t think of it. Makes no sense does it?
Yes, it’s a good question, Witherspoon.
I’d really like to see the court papers … !
By the way, the family court doesn’t refer to this situation as a “custody” case: we’re talking about a Child Arrangements Order where the issue is where Henry and Jack will live and how much time they should spend with the person/people who they don’t live with.
From what I remember, this started off as an application by Pat and Tony for Henry to live with them. They should now withdraw their application.
Rob was the respondent to that application and also, I think, making a cross-application in the same terms: that Henry and Jack live with him. I can’t remember how Helen became a party … She would have been a respondent in Pat and Tony’s application. There’s an argument for the whole thing starting afresh in a sense because Pat and Tony should now step aside and Helen should be the applicant.
Anyway, whoever is applicant and whoever is respondent in reality, the information that came to light in the criminal trial is relevant to the family proceedings. This is a situation where there are allegations of domestic violence which may impact upon an assessment of the children’s welfare. The hearing should be adjourned in order for there to be a fact finding hearing so that the family court can decide whether the allegations made by Helen against Rob can be proved to the civil standard of proof. If that isn’t done, I’d be outraged to say the least!
Plus, CAFCASS will have written a report prior to the criminal trial and that will also need to be revisited in my view. Their report will not have dealt with things as they are now with baby Jack, as well as the other factors that weigh against Rob as set out by Witherspoon: returning to work, not having the same family network of support as Helen, never having had care of a baby on his own before, being a relatively new parent and so on.
And, I keep banging on about Helen’s psychological well-being. She didn’t strike me as being well after the incident and during her time in prison. I’d hazard a guess that she’s got some kind of trauma to contend with. To play devil’s advocate, if I were Rob I’d insist on a psychological report. The criminal case was based on her being unstable and unpredictable. I’d be surprised if the family case were different. And if you’re going to make that sort of allegation, you need to prove it. The problem is who would pay for the report since both parties appear to be privately paying. The other problem is that Star Advocate Anna may ask for Rob to be assessed, too.
Basically, I don’t see how the case can go ahead as a final hearing on Wednesday. Rob ought to be advised to do the decent thing and actually withdraw his application, too, and let the children remain with Helen.
Expect all family lawyers who listen to The Archers to collectively shout at the radio at 7.15pm on Wednesday if the case is settled as a final hearing with Henry and Jack going to live with Rob.
Ah. I misread the thread title and was going to opine that shop bought custard is perfectly adequate and Rob’s opinion on the matter is, like so much else, complete shite.
I’m not sure that Rob will have a job to go to. I’m expecting Justin to withdraw the offer on the basis that Rob’s testimony and appearance in court reveal that his health is an issue which Rob failed to disclose at interview.
Justin is a fool if he doesn’t withdraw the job offer to Rob.
A more basic issue to custody of Henry is the Step-parent Responsibility Agreement. Is there any chance that Helen could get that rescinded, Miss Mid-City?
Here is a copy of the form (fun internet searches to do while on holiday): all should scroll to the very end.
http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/system/uploads/attachments/0008/5567/C_PRA2.pdf
Listening to Tuesday’s episode, the writers went out of their way to really make it seem that Helen was the sure winner. Even the judge was joining in, having a go at Rob.
For sure, this means Helen is going to lose.
As ever, I’m curious as to the way this is being written. Normally in a private family law case you’d start with the social worker giving evidence first because once they’ve finished they can then return to their other, important work. Their evidence is also fairly pivotal and if they make a recommendation in your favour, the judge will have to be persuaded to go against it by some very strong arguments. Rob – a suspected rapist, serial domestic abuser and relatively inexperienced father – should not stand a realistic chance of having those children live with him. On Wednesday Anna said that the social worker’s report supports Helen: that counts for a lot.
Still, I didn’t expect Pat to give evidence first: she should have withdrawn her application. Actually, I didn’t expect to hear from her at all. Why is she still the applicant when in effect this means she’s “competing” with Helen for Henry to live with her and Tony?! What application is she pursuing? Why is she pursuing an application at all?
And how odd that the same judge who presided over his criminal trial is now making a decision in the family case. (That particular quirk in the story made me roll my eyes heavenward. The same judge – really??!! How convenient! And it’s unnecessary because the case doesn’t need to be heard by such a senior judge: it could just as easily have been dealt with by a district judge …)
Another technical point I’d like to make is that Mr South acting for Rob incorrectly stated “… The burden of proof in these proceedings is on the balance of probabilities …” That would have made lawyers up and down the country howl. He ought to have said, “The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities …” The “burden of proof” is borne by whoever brings the case. Judges don’t need to be patronised in this way (that is, by way of incorrectly stating the law on evidence) and most of them would let Mr South know.
Also, Mr South shouldn’t be asking whether Helen has suffered from health problems and ask her about seeing a psychiatrist in March 2016. This ought to be known to the court. Her medical records ought to have been disclosed including any report from the psychiatrist she saw.
Ultimately, this isn’t a “fight” between Helen and Rob: the focus must always be on what is best for the welfare of the children in the case. I can’t really think of one cogent, persuasive argument in Rob’s favour. So if Rob is granted a Child Arrangements Order that the children live with him and spend time with Helen for visits, I’d be astonished. And yet I know that the scriptwriters are more than capable of some such unbelievable, unrealistic contrivance … !
As we say on the streets of Brooklyn, “From your lips to God’s ears” or in this case, “to the scriptwriters’ ears!” Will they go for logic and sense, or a dramatic storyline?
Let’s just say, I’m intrigued about the outcome – but I don’t expect the same judge who heard the criminal trial will let Rob have the children live with him.
And I think I’ve worked out why Pat is still the applicant in this case – it must be because Rob has a cross-application for the children to live with him. If he’s successful, Helen will need a Child Arrangements Order to spend time with Henry and Jack. You can assume that any time spent with Helen will include Pat and Tony but they probably have a special relationship with Henry (and Jack) that’s separate to his relationship with his mother, so they would want their own Child Arrangements Order to spend time with Henry and Jack.
It’s not good for Rob to keep insisting the child is called Gideon. There are issues about the child’s identity and emotional welfare that trouble me in this regard. Either the scriptwriters sort this out or they’re storing up more turmoil for this child who is already believed to be conceived of rape. Rob can take advice and get into more litigation about the child’s name or he can just accept it and call him by his given, legally registered name.
About the Gideon thing, wouldn’t a father have some say in the name for his child. If a dad was not evil a Rob, for the mother to just register any old name is not fair. Even worse to Penilize the dad for using a nickname.
My memory (admittedly from 17 years ago) is that either parent if they are married can register the birth. It is assumed they are in agreement as to the name. In my case the registrar came to the maternity ward, so i did it.
If the parents aren’t married the father has either to be present at the registration or give the mother a declaration saying he is willing to be named on the certificate.Jim wrote:
About the Gideon thing, wouldn’t a father have some say in the name for his child. If a dad was not evil a Rob, for the mother to just register any old name is not fair. Even worse to Penilize the dad for using a nickname.
The thing is, Helen’s situation wasn’t comparable to a normal, happy domestic situation. And names on birth certificates can only be changed under certain circumstances, otherwise a deed poll application for the child has to be made.
Gideon wasn’t a nickname, it was Rob’s intended (legal) name for the baby. He definitely would have registered it, given the chance – and regardless of what Helen or anyone else wanted. That was clear from his discussion with Arseula, and his temper when he learned that Helen had already registered the baby’s name.
I’m just glad she got there first.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.