Ivor Catt, 121 Westfields, St. Albans AL3 4JR, England. 28may/20nov97/24nov97

A combination of factors puts a married father in an impossible situation when he comes to some appreciation of the situation he is in in a secret divorce court.

A short-hand for his situation is to decribe him as the bear in a bear-bating exercise.

He has two options;

1

To spend the rest of his life battling in the courts and struggling in life to access his children, in a game where all the cards are stacked against him; or

2

To withdraw.

The problem for a normal, caring father is to withdraw and keep his conscience intact. This is where Retreat comes into play.

When his situation appears hopeless, the victim will give a brief written summary of his situation to Retreat. On the basis of the assumed validity of his summary, Retreat will validate his withdrawal from

1

Access to his children, and

2

Salaried employment,

3

His retreat into the grey or black economy, or into welfare benefits.

The plan is that the victim should supply his short summary of the case, plus Retreat's recommendations, to judges, social workers etc. involved in his divorce and associated matters.

What has been missing has been any countervailing pressure to the rampant behaviour of today's secret family courts. Retreat may in the longer term provide this, and be used by our judges and social workers as a counter-pressure to fend off rampant radical feminists. It could in the longer term become the de facto new legal system overseeing family matters.

Retreat will not be democratic. Rather, the names and backgrounds of those who make up the validating group in Retreat may be made available.

(First written in London on 31may97. Now updated on 2june97.)

"Retreat" will have a standard document, salled a Retreat Certificate (RC), with two sections. The first section A will have standard copy, dated to give the date of issue of the copy plus the date of the original issue. The second section B, hopefully usually short, will be "Retreat"'s official response to the particular case. It will be dated and signed. It will probably begin "On the basis of the information given in writing by the father/husband, Retreat recommends (a) retreat from any further attempts by the father to access his child(ren) in any way; (b) retreat from the white economy, possibly into the black or grey economy; (c) retreat from salaried employment into the future." This may be followed by comment on the alleged facts of the case as provided to Retreat by the father. The document will specifically repudiate secrecy at any level, including that imposed by the courts.

This is a first draft of the standard section Section A.

Retreat recognises that ethical considerations have no bearing on society's treatment of children (or of fathers) which now are the chattels of their mother. Retreat recognises that considerations of justice and of the law, or of the rights of the child, or of its well-being, play no part in the deliberations and decisions of our secret family courts. Retreat recognises that the sole consideration driving our secret family courts is that of Power, linked with the maximisation of legal and court costs.

Retreat recognises that a divorcing or divorced man has no right at any time in the future to (a) access to his children, (b) access to income, (c) access to or accumulation of assets, including his home. Retreat recognises that a father/husband has no power whatsoever in today's society. It sets out to validate a man's rational response to his position. It validates his acceptance that he has no power whatsoever, and therefore no responsibility to his children or to his wife or ex-wife. He also has no responsibility for the proper functioning of the state, or for any involvement in the political process. The reaction to be validated by Retreat is similar to that of the Boston Tea Party, except that today's helot man getting the support of Retreat probably eschews violence. The other precedent is Consciencious Objection.

It is expected that judges and social workers etc. will at some point in a case receive copies of the RC document created by Retreat, which will signal that that family's case - courts, social workers, CSA etc. is now over. This is because the issues of money (there being no more money to disperse) and access to parents by children have ended by default.

It is expected that files of RC certificates will be set up for each court and for each judge. Should RCs generally contain more than cursory treatment of each case, they will prove invaluable for the process of blackballing specific judges, social workers and courts. The accumulation of more than a certain number of RC's on one functionary will lead to that functionary ceasing to practise, because in future, men will not attend their meetings or communicate with them.

It is important to register that Retreat's operational model is that there is no point in men attending or arguing their case in the family courts as today constituted, and that this situation will continue for more than twenty years. This is because judges are habituated to ignoring the law, and will continue to do so for a long time into the future.

Precedents establishing that a judge should take into consideration the likely effects of his judgement, and modify his judgement in their light.

"A judge was entitled to dismiss a father's contact application .... following threats by the child's stepfather that if proceedings continued he would reject the child and the mother." - Kate O'Hanlon, Barrister, Law Report, The Independent, 25june97, p17.

"Court of Appeal.

In determining an application for a residence order, a judge was entitled to take into account the financial disadvantage which might result if the child lived with the mother and the Child Support Agency embarked on an assessment of the father's income.

Lord Justice Thorpe said that the mother had criticised the judge for attaching considerable weight to the financial considerations that he envisaged would result from acceding to her application for a residence order.

....

In his Lordship's judgement, the judge was entitled to look at the case realistically in the round and to anticipate what would be the probable consequences of the mother giving up employment and drawing state benefits as a full time carer.

The exact effect of any residence order was incapable of precise determination but the judge was entitled to look at the probable consequences.

Lord Justice Leggatt gave a concurring judgement."

- Child Support Agency relevant in residence, The Times, May 10th, 1995.

Court of Appeal. [1995] 2 FLR 612 CA & [1995] FL 601 CA

"Court of Appeal.

When making a decision under s 24 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the court had to have regard to the effect on those directly affected by it. That necessarily involved taking into account what would happen to those deprived of the right to live in the matrimonial home including, where council property was concerned, the effect of what was known of the local authority housing policy.

....

The court could properly take judicial notice of the approximate level of rents and deposits required for private sector accommodation, and assess the wife's likelihood of obtaining alternative accommodation accordingly.

....

I do not see how the court can perform its duty without taking into account what will happen to those deprived of the right to live in the matrimonial home and this necessarily involves having regard to the effect of what is known of the local authority housing policy. I do not think it is correct to describe the effect of such an approach as being 'to direct the local authority to provide a house for someone to whom it would otherwise not give a house' or 'to manipulate local authority housing lists and to usurp the function of the council'. The reality is that in a case such as this the court and the housing authority [=father] have different but interacting duties and functions and the court cannot but have regard to the manner in which the performance by the housing authority [=father] of its function is likely to affect the consequences of the court's decision.

This question is not one which is devoid of authority. In Firman v Firman (unreported) 6 June 1996 this court held that it was proper for the court to have regard to the likelihood of rehousing by the local authority when reaching a decision under s 24 of the 1973 Act as to which party should keep the tenancy of the matrimonial home..

...."

[1997] 1 FLR 27 JONES v JONES Court of Appeal, Morritt and Phillips IJJ, 29August1996.

Does the father have an interacting role with the court, in the same way as the local council has? Will the courts decide that the role of the father in the family is less than that of the local council, so that the precedent in JONES v JONES does not apply? - I.C.