I see F4J have launched yet another campaign (they seem to launch PR campaigns like rabbits breed) - this time to name and shame "contact deniers - parents, solicitors, judges, Cafcass officers, MP’s and any other parties involved in contact denial and the forcible separation of children from their fathers". Barristers are exempt it seems, but probably only because F4J haven't worked out we aren't solicitors. I am confident that although none yet appear on the name and shame list, nor are members of the bar on the O'Connor Xmas card list.
Given the fate of Solicitors From Hell, Social Workers from Hell and assorted other similar websites I'm wondering how long this site will last before before being pulled or injuncted. Shall we start a sweepstake?
Although the site says entries are moderated there are already around 30 entries on there since launch earlier today, many naming mothers, some citing case numbers, others giving details of evidence and court proceedings. Some name children who appear to be or have been the subject of proceedings and others accuse professionals of dishonest or corrupt conduct. And the website appears to invite the sending of court orders from Children Act proceedings to F4J for some kind of verification purpose (significantly of course, a court order verifies there are proceedings but not the accuracy of the comments - and I would think even more significantly it also puts F4J on notice of the fact that the provisions of s97(2) CA 1989 and s12 AJA 1960 apply), although some comments are posted by "helpful" members of the extended paternal family who presumably have been permitted to post without providing a court order. Readers of this blog will know that publication of the above information raises a number of potential legal issues for both the parent disclosing and the publisher of it - and that the assorted "from hell" sites were challenged because of their defamatory content and the charging in some cases of fees for removal.
I'm wondering how many of the dads who have plastered the full name and accusations of their ex on that website are going to find that they miraculously obtain more contact or a warmer welcome from the court at the next hearing. As Paul Daniels would say with a cheery grin "not a lot". Particularly not the ex of the mother who is named and identified as having made a rape complaint which is said to be false.
As David Allen Green (@jackofkent) would say #carefulnow
PS No, I'm not linking to it. For reasons which the astute amongst you will divine without difficulty.
[Update : 10.20am Thurs 20 June : the website is now password protected. Dang. Haven't made it to the bookies yet...]