The first one started with mediation. The process was highly feminized, and all the mediators were women. I felt very much that they were predisposed to the view that I was "at fault". The process failed, in that we weren't able to agree a settlement. It was useful only in that we were required to perform disclosure, and to discuss the disclosed documents in a fairly non-judicial forum; disclosure would be necessary anyway when the settlement went to court. In court, my solicitor was a woman; my wife's was a woman; and the judge was a woman.
This is the UK; Family Court proceedings were subject to very strict secrecy. The press couldn't report Family Court proceedings, not even anonymized, so basically the public had no idea what kinds of things went on in Family Court. It's become a little looser now, but only a little. It's high time for reform of UK family law.
[Edit] I advised people "don't get married". Then I went into my second marriage, which ended 3 years later. Dogfood much?
I wanted to add that I have also taken part in marriage guidance. That counsellor was also a woman; I remember her describing me as "a tough nut to crack". This was the premier marriage guidance outfit in the UK.
It seems an incredibly stupid thing for a trained counsellor to say; who wants to be "cracked"? It certainly alienated me from that process.
Perhaps most of the men these people encounter from troubled marriages are objectively arseholes, but I doubt it. I don't think many arseholes go to marriage guidance, and I don't think they engage with mediation. I know that many psychotherapists are people who have been through therapy; I wonder if these cousellors and mediators are women who have experienced spousal abuse themselves.
In the UK, Family Court proceedings are secret. I agree that it's wrong; but the rationale is that this kind of court proceeding often needs participants to have confidence that what they say to the court isn't going to be made public. I agree with that too.
I think it's fine to protect the identity of the participants; but I think that if the way these courts work were more widely known, then reform would come quicker. It's a sort of Catch-22.
The first one started with mediation. The process was highly feminized, and all the mediators were women. I felt very much that they were predisposed to the view that I was "at fault". The process failed, in that we weren't able to agree a settlement. It was useful only in that we were required to perform disclosure, and to discuss the disclosed documents in a fairly non-judicial forum; disclosure would be necessary anyway when the settlement went to court. In court, my solicitor was a woman; my wife's was a woman; and the judge was a woman.
This is the UK; Family Court proceedings were subject to very strict secrecy. The press couldn't report Family Court proceedings, not even anonymized, so basically the public had no idea what kinds of things went on in Family Court. It's become a little looser now, but only a little. It's high time for reform of UK family law.
[Edit] I advised people "don't get married". Then I went into my second marriage, which ended 3 years later. Dogfood much?