@Ash ,
@proud_dad , Here is an example of a generated Position Statement (PS). Please share your thoughts on it. One observation I’ve made during the hearings is that referencing points from your statement to a previous hearing makes it significantly harder for the opposing counsel to criticize them:
"
Position Statement
Introduction
This position statement is submitted in preparation for the upcoming court hearing regarding contact arrangements and the welfare of my three-year-old child. As a litigant in person, I respectfully draw the court's attention to the principles of family law and case precedents that emphasize the importance of maintaining meaningful relationships between children and both parents, fostering early education, and addressing parental alienation.
________________________________________
1. False Allegations and Unsubstantiated Claims
In Re H (Contact Order) [2002] EWCA Civ 1529, the Court of Appeal emphasized:
"The welfare of the child cannot be properly served if one parent's role in their life is diminished based on unproven allegations."
During the fact-finding hearing, no allegations made against me were substantiated. This absence of findings underscores that my contact with my child should be encouraged and facilitated, as the court has a duty to ensure that baseless claims do not obstruct a child’s right to a meaningful relationship with both parents.
________________________________________
2. Importance of Early Childhood Education
The other parent has actively prevented my child from attending nursery, despite the well-documented developmental benefits of early education. This constitutes a denial of my child’s right to access crucial opportunities for social, emotional, and cognitive growth. In PP vs JP [2024] EWHC 1697 (Fam), the High Court emphasized:
"Expert evidence on educational arrangements is critical in determining the best interests of the child."
Furthermore, parental alienation often manifests in behaviors that disrupt a child’s developmental stability, including educational opportunities (Clarkson & Clarkson, 2007; Fidler et al., 2012).
________________________________________
3. Parental Alienation and Obstructive Behaviors
In Re D (Children) (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWFC 64, the High Court stated:
"Where a parent intentionally or inadvertently damages the child’s relationship with the other parent, the court must intervene to protect the child’s welfare and ensure the continuation of that relationship."
The mother’s actions, including withholding nursery attendance and fostering the child’s dependency on her, align with recognized patterns of parental alienation. Such behavior undermines my efforts to establish a bond with my child and obstructs their emotional and social development.
________________________________________
4. Progression Toward Unsupervised Contact
In Re L (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1157, the court held:
"The objective of supervised contact is to facilitate a safe environment for the child to rebuild trust with the non-resident parent, with a view to progressing towards unsupervised interactions in due course."
Supervised contact has been hindered by the child’s resistance, reportedly due to their dependency on the mother. This emphasizes the need for structured and gradual interventions to transition toward unsupervised contact, ensuring the child’s welfare remains paramount.
________________________________________
5. Shared Parental Responsibility
In Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 999, McFarlane LJ highlighted:
"Where parental responsibility is shared, both parents must discharge their duties and responsibilities in a manner that respects the rights of the other parent."
The mother’s reluctance to facilitate contact contravenes this principle and negatively impacts the child’s right to maintain relationships with both parents. Shared parental responsibility mandates cooperation in fostering the child’s best interests, including education and contact arrangements.
________________________________________
6. The Least Interventionist Approach
In Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33, the Supreme Court emphasized:
"The court should adopt the ‘least interventionist’ approach. Cutting off all contact between parent and child is justified only by overriding necessity in the child’s welfare."
This principle supports my position that supervised contact should be viewed as a transitional arrangement, leading to regular, unsupervised contact, as no evidence exists to justify permanent restrictions.
________________________________________
7. Timely Enforcement of Contact Orders
In Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute) [2003] EWHC 1024 (Fam), the court recognized:
"Swift and decisive action is necessary where one parent undermines contact arrangements. The longer the delay, the greater the psychological harm to the child."
The delays in facilitating meaningful contact exacerbate the harm caused by parental alienation and risk further damaging my relationship with my child.
________________________________________
8. Educational Welfare and Judicial Responsibility
The denial of nursery attendance further highlights the need for decisive judicial intervention. As established in In the matter of H-W (Children) No 2 [2021] UKSC 2021/0215:
"Children's educational needs must be prioritized when determining their welfare in custody disputes."
The court’s role is critical in ensuring that my child receives appropriate educational opportunities and that their emotional and developmental needs are safeguarded.
________________________________________
Conclusion
I respectfully request that the court:
1. Enforce the child’s attendance at nursery to support their developmental needs.
2. Implement a structured plan for transitioning from supervised to unsupervised contact.
3. Emphasize the shared responsibility of both parents to facilitate contact and promote the child’s welfare.
4. Address and mitigate the mother’s obstructive behaviors that align with recognized patterns of parental alienation.
By addressing these issues, the court will ensure the child’s best interests are met, fostering a balanced and supportive environment for their growth and well-being.
________________________________________
References
1. Re H (Contact Order) [2002] EWCA Civ 1529
2. PP vs JP [2024] EWHC 1697 (Fam)
3. Re D (Children) (Parental Alienation) [2019] EWFC 64
4. Re L (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1157
5. Re W (Children) [2012] EWCA Civ 999
6. Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33
7. Re M (Intractable Contact Dispute) [2003] EWHC 1024 (Fam)
8. In the matter of H-W (Children) No 2 [2021] UKSC 2021/0215"
That gives an idea of the style of writing, even if the content and situation varies.