Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thecrashingisles

Grandparents Spend £30K Trying To Stop Daughter-In-Law Moving To Australia

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3077461/The-long-distance-grandparents-dared-fight-son-s-ex-decided-Australia-grandchildren-adored-Chris-Dawn-staked-life-savings-battle-stop-her.html

It’s been seven months since Chris, 67, and Dawn, 62, saw their grandchildren. Their house has been eerily quiet since six-year-old Cecilia and Charlotte, two, left Britain to live in Australia. Not a day passes when Chris and Dawn don’t think of them.

Last September, the family lost a court battle to prevent the girls’ mother, who separated from their son Delwyn in 2013, taking them 10,500 miles away to Sydney. Since then, Chris and Dawn have had just three video calls with their grandchildren, and are starting to lose hope of ever seeing them again.

Earlier this year, the Mail highlighted the agony of being a long-distance grandparent and shared readers’ devastating stories. But what makes the Clarks’ situation particularly tragic is that Chris spent more than £30,000 from his retirement fund on lawyers’ fees in a desperate bid to keep his beloved granddaughters in the UK.

287E8DD800000578-3077461-image-a-12_1431

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the Courts can order passport restrictions to prevent children being taken out of the country in such cases. Their interest is the interest of the children. Not knowing the true details of the case I'm led to wonder about Delwyn's behaviour, since the Court would normally consider it in the best interests of the children for them to have contact with both parents, and emigrating puts an end to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not knowing the true details of the case I'm led to wonder about Delwyn's behaviour, since the Court would normally consider it in the best interests of the children for them to have contact with both parents, and emigrating puts an end to that.

30k would buy a lot of plane tickets, even at today's prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the Courts can order passport restrictions to prevent children being taken out of the country in such cases. Their interest is the interest of the children. Not knowing the true details of the case I'm led to wonder about Delwyn's behaviour, since the Court would normally consider it in the best interests of the children for them to have contact with both parents, and emigrating puts an end to that.

Australia is better for kids, full stop. Those selfish bastards could have flown themselves to Australia every year for 5 years - business class - for that money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a bright spring morning, the Clarks’ spacious home, on a private road in a pretty village, is peaceful. ‘Too peaceful,’ sighs Dawn, staring wistfully out of the window.

Value of this house?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given they have family there I assume they can apply for a visa and just move there.. I'd have thought Australia would be quite a nice retirement spot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given they have family there I assume they can apply for a visa and just move there.. I'd have thought Australia would be quite a nice retirement spot!

Unlike Britain, most countries don't just let you move there if you feel like it. Particularly old farts who expect the local taxpayers to fund their healthcare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the Courts can order passport restrictions to prevent children being taken out of the country in such cases. Their interest is the interest of the children. Not knowing the true details of the case I'm led to wonder about Delwyn's behaviour, since the Court would normally consider it in the best interests of the children for them to have contact with both parents, and emigrating puts an end to that.

The courts don't give a stuff for fathers. I personally know of a case where, on a whim, the mother decided to move back to her him country with kids aged from 3 to 8. Courts allowed it without question. This mother had no job in the other country (still doesn't a couple of years later) and suffers from poor mental health. Even so the father never had a chance. As a father you have no rights over your children. As a grandparent, even less than zero.

As for Delwyn, he could be an actual living Saint. It won't make any difference. In case you missed it. Fathers have no rights over their children.

Besides, all it takes is for the wife to cite unreasonable behaviour (which they almost always do) and its game over. They husband doesn't even have to be abusive, just that the woman to say she feels like he might be. Game over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts don't give a stuff for fathers. I personally know of a case where, on a whim, the mother decided to move back to her him country with kids aged from 3 to 8. Courts allowed it without question. This mother had no job in the other country (still doesn't a couple of years later) and suffers from poor mental health. Even so the father never had a chance. As a father you have no rights over your children. As a grandparent, even less than zero.

As for Delwyn, he could be an actual living Saint. It won't make any difference. In case you missed it. Fathers have no rights over their children.

Besides, all it takes is for the wife to cite unreasonable behaviour (which they almost always do) and its game over. They husband doesn't even have to be abusive, just that the woman to say she feels like he might be. Game over.

It's even worse. Wife cheats and has her lover's children, and the cuckolded husband is responsible for them, even if DNA tests show they are not his. In one case, the wife fraudulently stole sperm from a fertility clinic without her ex's knowledge, and he was STILL held responsible.

It's less than no rights, it's downright slavery.

'Father' ordered to pay £100k for children he never knew he had after ex-wife tricked IVF clinic into using his frozen sperm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392045/Man-ordered-pay-100-000-children-ex-wife-tricks-clinic-using-frozen-sperm.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's even worse. Wife cheats and has her lover's children, and the cuckolded husband is responsible for them, even if DNA tests show they are not his. In one case, the wife fraudulently stole sperm from a fertility clinic without her ex's knowledge, and he was STILL held responsible.

It's less than no rights, it's downright slavery.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392045/Man-ordered-pay-100-000-children-ex-wife-tricks-clinic-using-frozen-sperm.html

are these "normal" Courts, or the much maligned "Family Courts", where family is deemed to be mother with children rather than father with children, because men, are in general, rapists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are these "normal" Courts, or the much maligned "Family Courts", where family is deemed to be mother with children rather than father with children, because men, are in general, rapists?

Does it matter which court? Both have the backing of the state. In a "normal" court now, one woman's uncorroborated word is worth how many men's testimonies?

ed. add uncorroborated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it matter which court? Both have the backing of the state. In a "normal" court now, one woman's uncorroborated word is worth how many men's testimonies?

ed. add uncorroborated

well, it matters if evidence is being overlooked, by any court, but the family court seems to come under a lot of attack for looking at opinions, assertions and not evidence, whereas in a "normal" court, the role of the judge is to pass judgement on the application of law to a given set of evidence, juries to assertain guilt.

The Family Court, it appears, is both judge and jury, and there is no process to appeal on opinion or evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, it matters if evidence is being overlooked, by any court, but the family court seems to come under a lot of attack for looking at opinions, assertions and not evidence, whereas in a "normal" court, the role of the judge is to pass judgement on the application of law to a given set of evidence, juries to assertain guilt.

The Family Court, it appears, is both judge and jury, and there is no process to appeal on opinion or evidence.

CAFCASS gathers the evidence. And will speak to all those concerned including the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, it matters if evidence is being overlooked, by any court, but the family court seems to come under a lot of attack for looking at opinions, assertions and not evidence, whereas in a "normal" court, the role of the judge is to pass judgement on the application of law to a given set of evidence, juries to assertain guilt.

The Family Court, it appears, is both judge and jury, and there is no process to appeal on opinion or evidence.

Bloo Loo

Love your posts and enjoy reading the,

I am sorry to announce however that you, being part of the enforcement mechanism of the state that would violently uphold these ridiculous courts' decisions, you really have no right or moral authority to deride them.

BKKA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine. But stop foreign paedos and rapists using 'right to a family' life excuses to stop them from being deported too.

All they needed to do was report their daughter as being a paedo to the Australian authorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts don't give a stuff for fathers. I personally know of a case where, on a whim, the mother decided to move back to her him country with kids aged from 3 to 8. Courts allowed it without question. This mother had no job in the other country (still doesn't a couple of years later) and suffers from poor mental health. Even so the father never had a chance. As a father you have no rights over your children. As a grandparent, even less than zero.

As for Delwyn, he could be an actual living Saint. It won't make any difference. In case you missed it. Fathers have no rights over their children.

Besides, all it takes is for the wife to cite unreasonable behaviour (which they almost always do) and its game over. They husband doesn't even have to be abusive, just that the woman to say she feels like he might be. Game over.

I do have some experience of the family courts - not my own, but someone I know well. Actually, he had great success with them when the ex moved 400 miles away (still in the UK) and got everything he asked for, and more. Went back for enforcement after she wouldn't play ball. Enforcement granted, clear breach of contact order. Various other stipulations in her favour then stripped away. She lost comprehensively and completely on every matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia is better for kids, full stop. Those selfish bastards could have flown themselves to Australia every year for 5 years - business class - for that money.

Having lived in Brisbane for 2 years I just don't see where this statement comes from. I can only guess you're one of many who had a miserable life here and blame the Uk for it.

The only difference is Oz vs the Uk is that the kids get to play outside more often, in Brisbane that meant covering them in suntan lotion 9 months a year, which has it's own impications according to some.

By all means list the things kids can do in Australia that they can't do here and prove me wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have some experience of the family courts - not my own, but someone I know well. Actually, he had great success with them when the ex moved 400 miles away (still in the UK) and got everything he asked for, and more. Went back for enforcement after she wouldn't play ball. Enforcement granted, clear breach of contact order. Various other stipulations in her favour then stripped away. She lost comprehensively and completely on every matter.

I suspect he didn't ask for much. Also I don't doubt that eventually he forced compliance with the court order. Trouble is by that time he's missed most of his children's childhood years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How gullible are the grandparents to spend 30k on this? My parents gave me a mega guilt trip when I moved to Australia with my 2 kids, I just ended up resenting them for it. They then spent 2 years moaning how much they missed them before we came back (for job reasons). Now we're back they still moan because we live 20mins drive away.

The mother is australian ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect he didn't ask for much. Also I don't doubt that eventually he forced compliance with the court order. Trouble is by that time he's missed most of his children's childhood years.

He asked for reasonable things, held the moral high ground, and got all of them.

She asked for everything and got nothing. Cue crocodile tears and feet stamping.

In one of the rulings, there's a section included which makes clear his right to apply to the Passport office for a restriction on issuing them to his children, effectively preventing them from moving abroad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He asked for reasonable things, held the moral high ground, and got all of them.

She asked for everything and got nothing. Cue crocodile tears and feet stamping.

In one of the rulings, there's a section included which makes clear his right to apply to the Passport office for a restriction on issuing them to his children, effectively preventing them from moving abroad.

Yeah, in the case I know about she got the passport restriction on him and then she was allowed to move them abroad against his wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   28 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.