Justice For Families

Hi - can anyone help me please?
Our MF is being considered for having rights of audience, however the judge wants our MF to formulate an argument as to why, in particular because my husband has a high IQ.
Our MF has to produce a statement and a CV. It doesn't sound like the judge is going to allow it unless there are good enough reasons.
The Munby judgment makes it clear that circumstances do not have to be exceptional, but still the judge says my husband is perfectly capable of doing it himself.

fassitangels wrote:Hi - can anyone help me please?
Our MF is being considered for having rights of audience, however the judge wants our MF to formulate an argument as to why, in particular because my husband has a high IQ.
Our MF has to produce a statement and a CV. It doesn't sound like the judge is going to allow it unless there are good enough reasons.
The Munby judgment makes it clear that circumstances do not have to be exceptional, but still the judge says my husband is perfectly capable of doing it himself.

But does your husband feel confident enough to adequately represent himself?

Might be a good line of argument.

You might need to correct me on a few points.

Currently you have your party - a husband (and you) with a MK.

Your husband is LIP, which is his right and further the LIP is assisted by a MK, which is your husbands choice. The Judge has a duty of care to a LIP. The duty extends to making sure that you understand what is being said in court.

If the MK gets an audience right, the MK effectively becomes an advocate for (to) the LIP and talks on the LIP behalf (or talks for the LIP).

In cases where the LIP can't really talk for them self, the Judge realises that the LIP might be disadvantaged and invites the MK to talk for the LIP. This type of case then continues with the MK talking for the LIP as an advocate. Progress might be impaired or the LIP might be disadvantaged if the MK doesn't talk for the LIP.

In your case, you are asking the Judge to give audience rights to a MK for part (presumably) of the hearing. I am guessing cross examination.

All hearings need to be article 6 compliant (right to a fair trial). This article 6 point extends to all parties.

While your MK becoming an advocate for your party, would any other party become more disadvantaged? Perhaps making the hearing for another party slightly more unfair?

One question I would have is asking about how much you have (in court and in front of a Judge) extended help, advice or assistance to another party (if there are any other LIP parties). If your party has extended the fairest possible approach to all parties, then it would seem fair to say that you would continue to do so. The advantage your party gains by your MK gaining audience rights then assists the court process unanimously and perhaps reinforces the fairness.

As I recall, the MK assisting in your case is quick thinking and articulate. They can get answers quickly and effectively.

Your husband might have a high IQ, but his presentation disadvantages him....or rather (if I am understanding correctly) ..... other peoples perception of your husbands presentation disadvantages him. Your husband's IQ is not court experience, where the MK has more experience and a wider exposure of court experience in the court arena. The experience that the MK applies should be the consideration, alongside the fairness issue. The Judge needs to feel that the MK having an audience right will help the court process.

Hopefully you can use that line of reasoning to develop an argument.

Thanks - I shall consider it and discuss it with our MK.
Does anyone know of any points of law I could possibly use?

fassitangels wrote:Thanks - I shall consider it and discuss it with our MK.
Does anyone know of any points of law I could possibly use?

The recent munby MF case law would be a good reference, since it mentions the fact that a person involved must feel they are represented & they have had a fair trial.

It also mentions that there should not be any exceptional circumstances as to why an MK should be given rights of audience

fassitangels wrote:It also mentions that there should not be any exceptional circumstances as to why an MK should be given rights of audience

Exactly, so if you build up a strong case as well (Husband is nervous etc) then you will get your way.

Thanks all - will try our best.
I think the important thing to focus on is high IQ has nothing to do with confidence and presentation.

fassitangels wrote:Thanks - I shall consider it and discuss it with our MK.
Does anyone know of any points of law I could possibly use?

I don't think there any law points, just guidelines that helps Judges decide. Obviously other parties will be asked to see if they have reservations or objections.

If another party raises an objection, the Judge is likely to hear their reasons and consider them.

I think alot of it is to do with that 1 of the respondents is unrepresented and to be honest the final hearing is going to be a circus.
I must be sick in the head because I can't wait to be cross examined!!! LOL

The post at the top doesn't say that you are the applicant. Being the applicant does give you some advantage. If your MK asked for audience rights at the start but was refused, you have grounds to ask again.....because the final hearing is where the best possible decision needs to be made by the Judge, so the Judge (in all fairness) needs to be exposed to all possible information to make the best decision (and also the right decision).

If the MK is writing a statement, his opening paragraph would start with ....this matter involves....... and present the introduction from the applicants point, perhaps bringing the applicant's status to the Judges attention.

If there was an audience application at the start, remind the Judge about that.

You are a 3 member party and your party is LIP, the LIP is supporting the MK's application for audience rights in this case, assuming that your party supports the MK getting audience rights. You want your party represented by the best person to represent you.....in your case, the MK is the better person.

Thanks - yes we are the applicant. My party status request however has been refused, although it is ordered that I attend court whenever I want to. So that's not an out and out "no" lol.
Anyway - our MK is currently putting together a statement taking on board the general consensus, I'm hoping this will be ok.
Yes we did ask for the MK to have rights of audience right at the start. The judge refused - but obviously there wasn't the munby case law then and subsequent presidents directions.

fassitangels wrote:Thanks all - will try our best.
I think the important thing to focus on is high IQ has nothing to do with confidence and presentation.

Stress,
Nerves,
Lack of familiarity with court processes and procedures.
Lack of knowledge of how to defend yourself in a legal context
Articulation
Public Speaking Skills
Are all reasons to use an MK to assist you.

Lines of reasoning, include
10 Multiple Intelligences
In Tony Buzan and Raymond Keene's Book of Genius a list of 10 multiple intelligences is given, along with a 10 page questionnaire to assess your "MIQ" (Multiple Intelligence Quotient).

These are:

1. Genius Quotient
2. Verbal Intelligence
3. Numerical/Logical Intelligence
4. Engineering/Spatial Intelligence
5. Sensual Intelligence
6. Body/Kinaesthetic Intelligence
7. Creative Intelligence
8. Intra-personal Intelligence
9. Inter-personal Intelligence
10. Spiritual Intelligence

So your partner could be low in interpersonal and verbal skills, but have a high Engineering and Numerical Intelligence - hence he'd be poor at representing himself. Many engineers are called "geeks", as they have poor social skills.

So IQ is not the be and end all is it, or such stereotypes wouldn't persist.

Good luck!

Nervous personality and feels intimidated in a courtroom. Very shy and emotionally unable to cope without MK. As most people would be except legal heads on here.

I am one of those strange breeds who does get very nervous before court, to the point of wanthing to throw up, but as soon as I am in that courtroom I become confident, and will stand up for myself and my family, not be intimidated by the process or barristers who are so far up their own asses lol.

I understand some people crumble, my husband does and it's not fair on him, but I on the other hand defend my family like a lioness defending her lion and cubs. I won't have any crap sprouted out about me, my husband or the child and I constantly challenge everything.

Most of it is down to confidence and presentation. My husband is very intelligent but no-one in that court seems to understand that he could be losing his child for the 2nd time. The first time almost destroyed him and I had to pick him up from the gutter and give him lots of love and attention and give him a reason to carry on fighting and a reason to live. Unless you have been through it or care for someone going through it, no-one in that court room will understand that it brings it all back, and he is facing losing his child for a 2nd time with worse implications than there were last time.

Add the history and the present into the equation, add carers who are not caring for the child because they are not putting the child's needs first, add their hostility towards my husband and him being accused of just about everything and a whole load of worry and stress and it's no wonder why he wouldn't be able to present his case.