From a very early age we are brought up to believe that the British Legal System is the best in the world. Huge portraits of noble Lord Chancellors, Judges and lawyers frown down us from Public Places in London. The Newspapers extol the workings of Judges who find in cases of huge complexity.
But, sometime around the early 1950’s, probably when Divorce Rates were rising and more solicitors were needed in a hurry corruption crept into the system. Rather like Nick Leeson and Barings, the intelligencia and the Law Society turned a blind eye to the operations of family lawyers because in the end, these rogue practices made them money and lots of it. The benefit to family lawyers of the Ouster Techniques practiced after the introduction of Domestic Violence laws has brought billions to lawyers, at least £3 billion a year in today’s money.
In fact, the Rule of Law and Due Process had collapsed. Family lawyers were allowed to remove men from their homes without trial. At least 100,000 men and their children had been removed by the time I met Gerry Bermingham in 1992.
Lord Rees-Mogg discussed due process and that, ‘Without due process there is no law,’ in a Times article. Previously he had clamoured for divorce reform, but of course to reform divorce, the lawyers would have to admit to Ousters.
To make any divorce reform the Family Division and its managers, the lawyers, would have to admit that for the last forty years or so they have conducted a process of ‘Law’ that, although conducted in Court does not constitute ‘due process.’
The first time I became aware of such unlawful practices was when, on September 16th 1990, I went to Court for what I thought was the return Hearing for an Application for an injunction to prevent my wife, who was, and is still seriously ill, taking my son abroad, during the process of discovering what type of brain disorder she had.
I was told to attend Court 38 at 10.30. Outside Court I was informed by my barrister that, ‘all the medical evidence had gone against me.’ The fact that I had not been shown that evidence or that it was completely fabricated by my ex-wife’s GP who misled the Court stating that I was mad even though he had never examined me! Because of the ‘process’ that I will describe later, this evidence was, ‘what was required to oust me.’
I then discovered that far from being a return to my previous Application, my wife had made a separate Application to remove me from my home by Ouster Application. She had made a sworn Statement that I had beaten her up on October 1st 1990. The fact that she had tried to strangle my son on June 3rd and that she was referred to a neuro-psychiatrist on October 1st because of this violence, made little difference to my lawyers. They did not defend the allegations and I stubbornly defended my rights and eventually an Order was drawn up stating that I should only leave if the neuro-psychiatrist gave my wife a clean bill of healthy to look after my son. I was denied my rights by my own lawyers to defend allegations from a very sick woman that were false and covered up her attacks on me and my son, then aged 18 months.
The non-defence of the Ouster meant that she could renew it at any time and she did on November 13th after Harry and I had been attacked again, I was forced out on November 21st.
The fact that the doctor had not, and will still not, give her a clean bill of health and the fact that my son has been abused for the past 16 years appears not to matter. He said that in a Witness Statement to the Court in 1995.
I employed a firm of advertised childcare specialist, Hodders to inform the Court of the danger Harry was in. Rather than tell the truth, Hodders informed Judge Thorpe on May 3rd 1992 that I had left ‘according,’ to the Order of Judge Monier-Williams in October 1990. That Order stated that I should only leave Harry with his mother if the psychiatrist said she was safe to look after Harry.
In 1996 I sued Hodders and the psychiatrist said he hadn’t given her a clean bill of health.
That was when Judge Wilcox expressed concern for Harry, “Who is looking after Harry?”
“Only you,” he said, pointing at me.
But, like all scams, it got out of control and unfortunately, like Barings, it had reached fever pitch before it was too late. It was likely that the first people to warn of impending calamity were M.P.’s whose male constituents were being badgered by people, like me, who had been thrown out of their houses unlawfully, some, like me, whose wives were more dangerous than their husbands and who went on to abuse the children. Then, it is likely that the Solicitors’ Complaints Bureau alerted the Law Society of the growing number of complaints by men. Lawyers being the arrogant beings they were ignored it as it would go away. Erin Pitzey warned the Government that her women were more violent than their husbands and that The Family Homes and Domestic Violence Act had created ‘a violent woman’s Charter.’
It was only later when I was told by a barrister friend of mine that, ‘the woman always wins in Court 38,’ that I realised the depth of deceit and the abuse of process. Gerry Bermingham confirmed this in our conversations in the House. His estimate was as much as 100,000 men in 1992 had been affected by ‘Court 38’, that is now a video suite! Baroness Faithful was so shocked that even she did not know how bad things were that she sent us to Lord Mackay, he did nothing. These men, like me, were all forced out of their homes with false allegations. Erin Pitzey warned the Government that many of the women in her refuges were more violent than their husbands. Once the husband is removed, the abuser can continue to abuse the children at will. If the father returns to Court to protect his children, as I have done on many occasions, the ‘process’ prevents any change in the ‘Consent Order’, gained outside Court 38, as it was deemed to have been agreed by both parties, thus cannot be overturned!
Those 100,000 men have produced at least 300,000 children, many of whom are boys, who have never sent their fathers. These boys are now being prosecuted with ASBOs. I am sure my descriptions ring alarm bells to events in Germany in 1935.
Then from a quite unexpected source, Lloyds Insurance. In 1991 the Judge ruled in the Members Case against Mr Outhwaite that if evidence was deliberately concealed from a Court, the case remains open for 21 years! As the bulk of divorce and Family Cases result in compromise and cover-up to ensure that ‘the mother keeps the children,’ panic quietly broke out. First, the large City law firms distanced themselves from family lawyers and set up their own institution then the Solicitor’s Indemnity Fund was quietly dissolved and Private Insurance brought in. But, this did not stop the rot and in the late nineties huge reforms were proposed for the Law Society including a separate Complaints Service outside the Society and a new governing body. Family law was quietly reformed to take-out the Ouster laws at their worst and fathers were blocked in their attempts to gain justice. One by one the fathers’ organisations FNF, Dad’s, Fathers4Justice fell by the wayside. Two men stayed fighting, both ironically with violent wives called Sophie, Dr Malcolm George and me. Malcolm’s wife ‘disappeared’ to Greece in the midst of his case leaving one. This is my story of the fight for justice for my son Harry.