Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rule 16.4 anyone?
#1
After my final hearing was appealled early this year which was successful and a new date set for a retrial, final hearing and cafcass to under take an addendum report and filed to court last week.

It has now been brought to my attention from my solicitor after they questioned me if cafcass had been in touch and because they had not they gave them a call to find that not only did cafcass not complete an addendum report but they had filed a rule 16.4 and want my son to have his own solicitor?? He is under 5yrs.


Im unsure why they would do that as its not a bloody difficult case. Its like every other case , instead I'm a father and my son is living with me after separation due to DV. Ex is perpetrator.

Does this normally happen to the mothers????

I have my own assumptions .
Is it that I challenged both the sec 7 and previous addendum report that was full of non factual information and inaccuracies. My previous contested hearing never took place as the courts bulls it up.

Are worried that the incompetent of the cafcass worker would be exposed?
As now I recently found out factually they had mislead the court with the inaccuracies in their report.
This was confirmed by ombudsmen.

So are they avoiding the final hearing and contested hearing by applying the rule 16.4

My worry is that the biased nature in this if they appoint the same cafcass officer.

Any one experienced this ?
Reply
#2
Sorry nothing to add except my sympathy.

I would not at all be surprised if it happens because you are the father.I see double standards everywhere I look.
I seem to notice a prevailing pattern (with some exceptions)

* resident fathers:  outcome = 50/50 shared care
* resident mothers: outcome = status quo
* 50/50 cases: outcome  = alternate weekends and half holiday and a bit more if lucky
Reply
#3
Yes definitely double standards.

I don't understand why the system blind sides it when its happening all the time.

I will do some reading and access some input from work colleagues if a rule 16.4 is at all common practice in a simple straight fwd child arrangement order.
I only know that in some difficult cases like adoption such rules are applied.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Slip Rule - Letter to Court help! mcscoobs 4 2,670 10-30-2017, 03:36 PM
Last Post: mcscoobs



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)