Skip to content


I’m not really very comfortable with the idea of anonymity and accept that many readers will share that view because they want to know the context and origin of the writing in order to judge it. To those readers I offer an apology and a few words of explanation here.

The debate over the issue covered in the first series of posts on this blog is a highly emotive one. So emotive, that the participants, rather than the issue too often become the focus of attention. That’s a real tragedy because the issue is the welfare of children and they don’t have a voice in the debate at all (rather ironically, since what children actually say is at the heart of the matter).

Of course it’s not really practical or possible for children to engage in the debate, nor is it appropriate for them to be presented in ways that suggest they can. The debate has evolved from what happens inside the court room, yet even in a much wider arena – free from constraint – still not enough time is given to careful thinking about those children and the issues they face.

In time honoured fashion where there’s too little understanding: mythology tends to fill the void. Unfortunately, with this particular issue the void’s packed with assumption too.

If you had discovered – on this page – that the blog was written by a father, a mother, a lawyer or someone from a campaign group, how many assumptions might you have made in that instant?

With anonymity, I hope to limit the usual generalised myths and assumptions and invite you to think more deeply.

No comments yet

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s