Wednesday evening saw the broadcast of the first instalment of the BBC's "Who Needs Fathers" series. The programme featured two contrasting separated couples - one, Alex Bronckaerts and Juliette Thomas locked in a bitter dispute in the Family Courts, and the other, Chris Cooke and Angela Anderson trying their very best to avoid such an institution.
The contrasts between the couples were huge - Alex and Juliette were very well off to put it mildly, whereas Chris and Angela (well mainly Chris to be honest) was struggling to make ends meet. Similarly, the first couple barely communicated (aside form the occasional abusive text by Juliette), whereas Chris and Angela discussed things civilly on almost every time. Rather than eventful occasions, the transfer of their two children between the their homes were relatively insignificant an amicable events, with each parent reminding the children to say their goodbyes or to "give your mother a kiss". Juliette's conduct couldn't have been more different, constantly trying to deny Alex access to their four children and the tensions and uncertainly she caused clearly created significant distress.
Perhaps the only thing the couples had in common was the awful impact the separation had on the fathers. Alex's suffering was clear for all to see, with this wife's attempts at stopping him take his kids on holiday leaving him in tears. Chris' suffering was more financial and physical - paying for both his own mortgage and that of his ex forced him to take a weekend job, have lodgers move in, and ultimately resulted in him living out of just one small room. (Of course Alex obviously suffered vast finally losses too thorough fidgeting such a long legal battle to see his kids, though one got the impression he could afford it).
By far the biggest contrast in the programme was between the two mothers. Although we saw occasional moments of anger and thoughts of denying contact from Angela, these were merely momentary lapses and entirely understandable in the circumstances. They were clearly heat of the moment events and once she had given an issue any thought her concern for the children won over. Despite the problems they faced or any differences of opinion, the couple always reached a compromise and an agreement on every issue which was genuinely in the best interests of the children.
Juliette on the other hand, was very much from the gender feminist school of thought when it comes to parenting. We got to hear various anti-male or anti-father statements from her, such as "who needs a man". The similarities with Harmanesque philosophy didn't end there, with her claiming to suffer verbal abuse from the children's father whereas in reality we see her sending out quite awful text messages insulting him with absolutely no provocation whatsoever. The programme also quite brilliantly highlights her dishonesty, for example in a discussion on her refusing to allow the children go on holiday with their father she denies that the father had attempted to collect them one morning. Unfortunately for her the BBC filmed most of the event in question, with a third party former court employee even witnessing the event!
The broadcast was especially effective in highlighting some of the tactics employed by custodial parents in making life so miserable for their ex-partners. There's emotional abuse such as the huge worry and uncertainly the father goes through every time he hopes to see his children and there's also the economic damage such as from cancelled holiday bookings. Perhaps the most effective tactic was where Juliette disrupted and ruined what little time Alex had with his four boys. She did this quite simply by just denying contact with one child each time rather than all four. The boys were used to always being together, so separating them this way caused anxiety and confusion, what should have been happy occasions we ruined by the uncertainly of when or if their brother would be joining them not to mention the endless waiting and travelling.
For purposes of balance and fairness we should note that unlike Alex, Juliette actually had no warning such a programme was being made - she was only actively participating in the broadcast from a quarter of the way through. This means that unlike other participants, she's wasn't aware that the consequences of her despicable behaviour were being caught on camera, thus we only really saw her true side and no one else's. That said, once agreeing to be filmed, Juliette carried on in exactly the same vein as previously, blatantly and deliberately denying court ordered contact on camera as if the children were her personal possessions,. Perhaps the only change the presence of the cameras caused was to put a stop to the abusive text messages.
The programme left me wondering how the family courts might have reflected on some of the content of the programme. For example one wonders if they'd view Chris' tiny home as an appropriate place for children and would have denied him contact if they'd been involved? Further still, a determined and malicious mother could presumably cite the fact he had lodgers as a further factor for denying contact. If someone such as Chris had been unfortunate enough to have been in a relationship with Juliette the consequences don't bear thinking about.
Fortunately Juliette's opponent in the Family Court's was Alex and not Chris, and despite her best efforts he finally got to see his children for one third of the year, albeit after another 13 months of fighting (and goodness knows how much expense). This for me shows perhaps the biggest weakness of the programme, Alex and Juliette are so far removed from your typical couple in terms of wealth and resources. Not all fathers can afford the endless legal fees and it would have been nice to see your average father go through the system too to show even more realism. The fact it even takes someone as wealthy and well connected as Alex such an incredibly long time to achieve some sort of success certainly illustrates just how unfit for purpose the family courts really are and perhaps that was the point.
The contrasts between the couples were huge - Alex and Juliette were very well off to put it mildly, whereas Chris and Angela (well mainly Chris to be honest) was struggling to make ends meet. Similarly, the first couple barely communicated (aside form the occasional abusive text by Juliette), whereas Chris and Angela discussed things civilly on almost every time. Rather than eventful occasions, the transfer of their two children between the their homes were relatively insignificant an amicable events, with each parent reminding the children to say their goodbyes or to "give your mother a kiss". Juliette's conduct couldn't have been more different, constantly trying to deny Alex access to their four children and the tensions and uncertainly she caused clearly created significant distress.
Perhaps the only thing the couples had in common was the awful impact the separation had on the fathers. Alex's suffering was clear for all to see, with this wife's attempts at stopping him take his kids on holiday leaving him in tears. Chris' suffering was more financial and physical - paying for both his own mortgage and that of his ex forced him to take a weekend job, have lodgers move in, and ultimately resulted in him living out of just one small room. (Of course Alex obviously suffered vast finally losses too thorough fidgeting such a long legal battle to see his kids, though one got the impression he could afford it).
By far the biggest contrast in the programme was between the two mothers. Although we saw occasional moments of anger and thoughts of denying contact from Angela, these were merely momentary lapses and entirely understandable in the circumstances. They were clearly heat of the moment events and once she had given an issue any thought her concern for the children won over. Despite the problems they faced or any differences of opinion, the couple always reached a compromise and an agreement on every issue which was genuinely in the best interests of the children.
Juliette on the other hand, was very much from the gender feminist school of thought when it comes to parenting. We got to hear various anti-male or anti-father statements from her, such as "who needs a man". The similarities with Harmanesque philosophy didn't end there, with her claiming to suffer verbal abuse from the children's father whereas in reality we see her sending out quite awful text messages insulting him with absolutely no provocation whatsoever. The programme also quite brilliantly highlights her dishonesty, for example in a discussion on her refusing to allow the children go on holiday with their father she denies that the father had attempted to collect them one morning. Unfortunately for her the BBC filmed most of the event in question, with a third party former court employee even witnessing the event!
The broadcast was especially effective in highlighting some of the tactics employed by custodial parents in making life so miserable for their ex-partners. There's emotional abuse such as the huge worry and uncertainly the father goes through every time he hopes to see his children and there's also the economic damage such as from cancelled holiday bookings. Perhaps the most effective tactic was where Juliette disrupted and ruined what little time Alex had with his four boys. She did this quite simply by just denying contact with one child each time rather than all four. The boys were used to always being together, so separating them this way caused anxiety and confusion, what should have been happy occasions we ruined by the uncertainly of when or if their brother would be joining them not to mention the endless waiting and travelling.
For purposes of balance and fairness we should note that unlike Alex, Juliette actually had no warning such a programme was being made - she was only actively participating in the broadcast from a quarter of the way through. This means that unlike other participants, she's wasn't aware that the consequences of her despicable behaviour were being caught on camera, thus we only really saw her true side and no one else's. That said, once agreeing to be filmed, Juliette carried on in exactly the same vein as previously, blatantly and deliberately denying court ordered contact on camera as if the children were her personal possessions,. Perhaps the only change the presence of the cameras caused was to put a stop to the abusive text messages.
The programme left me wondering how the family courts might have reflected on some of the content of the programme. For example one wonders if they'd view Chris' tiny home as an appropriate place for children and would have denied him contact if they'd been involved? Further still, a determined and malicious mother could presumably cite the fact he had lodgers as a further factor for denying contact. If someone such as Chris had been unfortunate enough to have been in a relationship with Juliette the consequences don't bear thinking about.
Fortunately Juliette's opponent in the Family Court's was Alex and not Chris, and despite her best efforts he finally got to see his children for one third of the year, albeit after another 13 months of fighting (and goodness knows how much expense). This for me shows perhaps the biggest weakness of the programme, Alex and Juliette are so far removed from your typical couple in terms of wealth and resources. Not all fathers can afford the endless legal fees and it would have been nice to see your average father go through the system too to show even more realism. The fact it even takes someone as wealthy and well connected as Alex such an incredibly long time to achieve some sort of success certainly illustrates just how unfit for purpose the family courts really are and perhaps that was the point.
As I stated before broadcast, it's clear this programme has come ten years too late at best and it's a disgrace that a public broadcaster such as the BBC hasn't addressed such key issue sooner given the awful impact malicious parents are having on children and society as a whole. However, it truly was an excellent production, and on the evidence of part one, maybe it was almost worth the wait.
Update - International readers can now watch the programme on Youtube.
John Kimble
As the child of divorced parents who spent much of my early teens in a similar situation to Alex and Juliette’s children, I find your interpretation of the documentary misses the nuances of their relationship in favour of a simple man good woman bad dichotomy.
What particularly bothered me was the attitude towards the single child who did not want to spend the weekend at his Dad’s with the others. I really felt Alex disregarded any notion that the child himself might have not wanted to go, instead believing it was a plot by his mother. I’ve done alternating-weekend visits. Sometimes, you just don’t want to go. With siblings involved, sometimes you want one-on-one time with your parent. It won't necessarily be at the most appropriate time.
Alex managed to make the absence of one child more important than the presence of the other three. He asked them (dragging them into questions they didn’t understand the full implications of) when Mummy was going to ‘let’ the other child come. Why wasn’t he here. Children, even very young ones, do understand when they are setting up the other parent for a fall. No wonder they had no idea how to answer.
The holiday debacle was also made worse by the fact that when he was told he could have them for seven days, he booked to take them for nine. These kind of post-marriage relationships develop slowly, and both sides have to trust each other. If you take an inch-and-a-half when you are given an inch, it makes things harder. Two extra days, or forgetting to make a phone call when you get there (as in Angela's case), mean a lot when one side’s trust that the other side can stick to an agreement is riding on them. It is hypocritical to moan about the other side ignoring your wishes (even in the form of a court order) if you ignore theirs.
Finally, your comment about Juliette’s ‘Harmanesque’ behaviour really irked me. Would you prefer that she constantly went on about how she couldn’t function without a man, didn’t run her own business and lived off child support? Standing alone after a long partnership is not easy for anyone. There is no need to berate someone for trying.
Nobody ever behaves perfectly in these kind of divorce proceedings. All of the parents we saw behaved unreasonably in one way or another. To divide them into absolute saints or sinners does not advance thinking about how to resolve these problems. Being the child in this situation has taught me that parents need to stop talking about how well they’re treating their children and how badly the other parent is, and start actually doing it.
Posted by: Imogen | Friday, 02 April 2010 at 13:12
Given that the court ordered the mother to release the children for the holiday then the length of time was clearly reasonable as the agreement was 7 days "or thereabouts". Further still, if you watch the programme you'll note he takes the advice of his female friend and decides to back down and agree to just seven days AND informs her of the exact location yet she still says no. It quite clearly is a case of "man good woman bad." Or to be strictly accurate it's an case of man good/average (under immense pressure/provocation) and woman an absolute disgrace. On the evidence of the programme she really is not fit to be the main custodial parent.
The absence of one child was not an minor issue as you pretend. It was a clear, unnannounced and unagreed breach of a court order. Imagine what would have happened if Alex just decided to return three kids one week instead of four? You complain about the extra day's holiday yet somehow this behaviour is acceptable. And it should be noted it wasn't a one off AND she has an au pair thus can have one one one time whenever she wants. It was just another method of attacking Alex.
I completely disagree with your last sentence - three the parents in the programme did their very best to be reasonable. There might have been the odd mistake in heat of the moment but they all clearly had their children's best interest at heart.
Juliette's behaviour was indeed Harmanesque and if anything that statement's unfair to Harman. I wasn't suggesting that she should state she couldn't function without a man, nor was I critiquing her finances. All she should do is to just stop being so sexist and discriminatory (particularly with four male children around) and recongnise that the children have a right and a need to see their father.
Thanks for commenting. I think most people would disagree with your views of Juliette though. For example take a look at this discussion:
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=1237930
Posted by: John Kimble | Friday, 02 April 2010 at 15:10
An excellent report JK. And as far as I can see, a fair one.
Imogen sees things differently, perhaps through her own experience, and acts as 'advocate'. While advocating for one side or another, as a lawyer does, is not unusual it is usual in its ignoring the direct observation and filtering through one's own emotional screen.
Saying,'this or that happened to me', has no material bearing. Yet it is precisely that subjectivity that is one-sidedly encouraged and facilitated in the FC.
Posted by: Amfortas | Saturday, 03 April 2010 at 11:17
Juliette's praise for the boy who stayed at home (in breach of the court order), saying how special he was, and what a special time they would have (when the boy knew it was his Dad's custody period) was completely abusive. She was setting her boy up against his Dad, she was teaching him he was more special BECAUSE he wasn't with his Dad, she was teaching her other boys that they were LESS special than the boy who stayed with her, and ultimately she was destroying the relationship of all of her children with their other parent - SHOCKINGLY AWFUL!
Posted by: Steve, London | Monday, 05 April 2010 at 16:33
In fact you don't as I have reported in my blog Degree Absolute (purpose typo) that is the one with a picture of Gloria Hunniford at the top and as did Bob Berman with his Ontario Divorce.com ( Renewed this week) and I said £500 ( Bob $500) was the max you should have to pay, for a consultation at a solicitors, and a single court appearance to settle everything, contact, finances property the lot and the initial £500 to be legal aid to both parties and that is the limit! If either one of them wants to return matters to court then they have to pay themselves, you watch a sudden dip in their services, yet I still believe the TRUE best interests of the kids would be served as it would dissuade conflict and not send Dad bankrupt!!
Posted by: Daveyone | Saturday, 24 April 2010 at 09:58