DIVORCED fathers demonstrated outside the country homes of two judges who they claim take the side of mothers in custody cases.
The group targeted two properties in Somerset calling for the courts to be more sympathetic to pleas for equal access to children.
The fathers chanted slogans and waved banners and placards outside the home of Justice Graham Cotterall, at Curry Rivel, near Langport.
He was out on Saturday afternoon but they left a letter setting out a claim for equal access made by the Equal Parenting Council.
They then took their protest a few miles away to the Lynch Country House Hotel, at Somerton, which is also the home of Justice Joy Bracewell.
One of the protesters was father-of-three Mark Harris who has been fighting for equal access to his children for eight years.
Mr Harris, of Plympton, Plymouth, said:
"Divorced wives can move their boyfriends into their home and they don't have to get welfare reports to have access to the kids. There is a great injustice and the judges could bring about change." He claimed courts generally ruled in favour of mothers with only limited access for the father, even when the man has good social service and welfare reports.
Monday 20 August 2001
Thursday 2 August 2001
Parents take access fight to judge's home .
DIVORCED or separated parents fighting for access to their children took their protests to the Seend home of a senior judge at the weekend.
About 35 parents holding placards took part in a demonstration outside the home of Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe, one of the country's most senior appeal judges on Saturday afternoon.
The parents had come from London, Cambridge, Plymouth, Bristol and Wiltshire. They have all been battling with the courts for access to their children.
As they stood outside the driveway to Lord Justice Thorpe's house they shouted "children need both parents."
Protest organiser Mark Harris, and Tony Coe, both members of the Equal Parenting Council, knocked on the judge's front door to deliver letters outlining the concerns felt by parents about the way family courts are run.
In the drive was a white L-registered Volvo 440 car. The shutters on both ground floor windows were drawn. No one answered the door so Mr Coe posted the letters through the judge's letter box.
The protest continued for a few minutes outside the drive and as the protesters dispersed, two police cars pulled up, but there was no trouble.
Lord Justice Thorpe had been invited to the Bell Inn in Seend to discuss the problems, but he did not attend.
Mr Coe, the president of the Equal Parenting Council, said that family courts were not carrying through the ruling contained in the 1989 Children's Act that parenting should be shared.
He said: "The key point is that one parent is being excluded for no good reason. If there is abuse or violence going on then of course there should be limitation of the parent's role, but we are talking about ordinary, loving, devoted parents that are being excluded from their children's life.
"Why is it that one parent has all the say? The other parent has the right to make an application to the court but the other parent can keep saying no and it can go on for months and years.
"If the system doesn't value the other parent (the parent who is not living with the children) then the children will think that. From the point of separation we need to treat the parents equally. "
Mr Coe dubbed the protests outside judges' homes the "judicial education programme." He added: "Not everybody agrees with the approach we are taking and I fully understand that view.
"But we have to make these people feel a little uncomfortable because the process makes our lives and our children's lives uncomfortable."
Richard Day, a 50-year-old father of two teenage daughters, has been fighting with the Child Support Agency and the courts for the past seven years. He says as a result he has suffered financially and emotionally and sees his daughters no more than twice a year.
Mr Day, of Market Lavington, said: "The Child Support Agency trebled the maintenance payable to my ex-wife for my daughters and each time I have appealed to the courts they have totally ignored the situation and have done nothing to encourage positive parenting. I think we should be looking at a public inquiry.
"We are reasonably minded people. We want what is best for our children and we need the system to be doing the same. If judges are not doing their jobs properly they should be sacked."
Lord Justice Thorpe, 62, has been an appeal judge in the family division of the High Court since October 1995.
His first marriage ended in divorce in 1989 and he remarried in the same year. He has three sons.
He was unavailable for comment about the protest outside his home in Seend.
About 35 parents holding placards took part in a demonstration outside the home of Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe, one of the country's most senior appeal judges on Saturday afternoon.
The parents had come from London, Cambridge, Plymouth, Bristol and Wiltshire. They have all been battling with the courts for access to their children.
As they stood outside the driveway to Lord Justice Thorpe's house they shouted "children need both parents."
Protest organiser Mark Harris, and Tony Coe, both members of the Equal Parenting Council, knocked on the judge's front door to deliver letters outlining the concerns felt by parents about the way family courts are run.
In the drive was a white L-registered Volvo 440 car. The shutters on both ground floor windows were drawn. No one answered the door so Mr Coe posted the letters through the judge's letter box.
The protest continued for a few minutes outside the drive and as the protesters dispersed, two police cars pulled up, but there was no trouble.
Lord Justice Thorpe had been invited to the Bell Inn in Seend to discuss the problems, but he did not attend.
Mr Coe, the president of the Equal Parenting Council, said that family courts were not carrying through the ruling contained in the 1989 Children's Act that parenting should be shared.
He said: "The key point is that one parent is being excluded for no good reason. If there is abuse or violence going on then of course there should be limitation of the parent's role, but we are talking about ordinary, loving, devoted parents that are being excluded from their children's life.
"Why is it that one parent has all the say? The other parent has the right to make an application to the court but the other parent can keep saying no and it can go on for months and years.
"If the system doesn't value the other parent (the parent who is not living with the children) then the children will think that. From the point of separation we need to treat the parents equally. "
Mr Coe dubbed the protests outside judges' homes the "judicial education programme." He added: "Not everybody agrees with the approach we are taking and I fully understand that view.
"But we have to make these people feel a little uncomfortable because the process makes our lives and our children's lives uncomfortable."
Richard Day, a 50-year-old father of two teenage daughters, has been fighting with the Child Support Agency and the courts for the past seven years. He says as a result he has suffered financially and emotionally and sees his daughters no more than twice a year.
Mr Day, of Market Lavington, said: "The Child Support Agency trebled the maintenance payable to my ex-wife for my daughters and each time I have appealed to the courts they have totally ignored the situation and have done nothing to encourage positive parenting. I think we should be looking at a public inquiry.
"We are reasonably minded people. We want what is best for our children and we need the system to be doing the same. If judges are not doing their jobs properly they should be sacked."
Lord Justice Thorpe, 62, has been an appeal judge in the family division of the High Court since October 1995.
His first marriage ended in divorce in 1989 and he remarried in the same year. He has three sons.
He was unavailable for comment about the protest outside his home in Seend.
Sunday 29 April 2001
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH(LONDON) - Judge brands 'martyr' father as a charlatan
A FATHER who "cast himself as a martyr" in a high-profile legal battle over his three daughters was described by a High Court judge yesterday as an "unprincipled charlatan" who should have no direct contact with them.
Mr Justice Munby said the children's welfare was best served by them having no direct contact with Mark Harris, 42, a driving instructor from Plymouth.
He referred to one of a number of demonstrations by supporters of Mr Harris outside the homes of various judges. The demonstrations were publicised on the internet.
Posters were displayed criticising Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the Family Division.
One read: "If BSE-infected meat is bad for kids . . . why is this mad cow in charge of Family Courts?"
Mr Justice Munby, sitting in the Family Division in London, said: "No amount of intimidation, whether demonstrating outside their homes, vilifying them on the internet or bombarding them with offensive letters, will have any effect on the judges or their families, or deflect the judges from their sworn duty to do right to all manner of people without fear or favour affection or ill-will, or alter their approaches to the cases they are called upon to try."
The judge said Mr Harris's daughters had lived with their mother following her divorce from him. The daughters wanted and enjoyed contact with their father.
The judge said that the mother did not significantly oppose contact, but "all three daughters have ended up opposed to and refusing to participate".
He said: "Mr Harris is the author of his own immense misfortune. He is also, even though he probably cannot recognise it, the cause of the blighting of his daughters' lives."
The mother and children have been left, he said, with a "beleaguered feeling of being stalked and harassed".
The judge said one reason he was giving his ruling in open court was that the case had been promoted as a cause celebre both by Mr Harris and by a number of campaigning organisations, including Families Need Fathers, the Equal Parenting Council, the UK Men's Movement and the group set up by Mr Harris himself, Dads Against Discrimination.
Mr Justice Munby said: "Mr Harris has cheerfully cast himself and allowed and encouraged others to cast him in the role of martyr.
"I believe there is a public interest in the members of these organisations knowing just how they have been bamboozled and cynically manipulated by a man, devoid of all moral scruple, who is singularly ill-suited either to assume the martyr's crown or to act as an ambassador for such organisations.
"Mr Harris has manipulated the press by feeding it tendentious accounts of these proceedings, enabled to do so because he has been able hypocritically to shelter behind the very privacy of the proceedings which hitherto has prevented anyone correcting his misrepresentations."
Mr Harris, who is serving a 10-month sentence for contempt of court, was in court for the ruling, as were a number of his supporters.
The judge rejected an application by Mr Harris to "purge" his contempt and release him from prison "to start with a clean sheet".
Saturday 28 April 2001
Evening Herald (Plymouth) - Dad loses fight over children, Judge rules in open court
A FATHER who 'cast himself in the role of martyr' in a high-profile legal battle over his children was today described by a High Court judge as an 'unprincipled charlatan' who should have no direct contact with his children.
Mr Justice Munby, sitting in the court's Family Division in London, took the unusual step of giving his ruling in open court in an 'immensely saddening case' involving contact between Mark Harris, a 42-year-old from Plymouth, and his children.
The judge said he had been driven to the unavoidable conclusion 'that the welfare of all the children is best served by there being no direct contact with Mr Harris' and that there should be, at present, a reduced amount of indirect contact.
He said: "It is in essence the story of a loving and devoted father and his children. The children do not live with him following his divorce from their mother. Mother has residence. The children wanted and enjoyed contact with their father."
The judge said the contact was not opposed or thwarted by the mother, but 'all three children have ended up opposed to and refusing to participate in contact'.
Mr Justice Munby said the mother and children needed a breathing space from Harris who had made them feel 'stalked and harassed'.
Harris, who is serving a 10-month sentence for contempt of court, was present for yesterday's ruling, flanked by security officers. His supporters were also in court.
The judge rejected an application by Harris to 'purge' his contempt and release him from prison.
Mr Justice Munby, who said he must return to prison, said Harris had carried out a 'deliberate campaign of lawless defiance of the court'.
He added the case had been presented as a 'cause celebre' by Harris and campaign organisations. He said: "Her Majesty's judges will not be deterred from doing their duty by such antics as Mr Harris and his associates have chosen to indulge in. No amount of intimidation, whether demonstrating outside their homes, vilifying them on the Internet or bombarding them with offensive letters, will have any effect on the judges or their families."
Western Morning News (Plymouth) - Judge condemns 'pig-headed' father
A FATHER who "cast himself in the role of martyr" in a high-profile legal battle over his three daughters was yesterday described by a High Court judge as an "unprincipled charlatan" who should have no direct contact with his children.
Mr Justice Munby, sitting in the court's Family Division in London, took the unusual step of giving his ruling in open court in an "immensely saddening case" involving contact between Mark Harris, 42, of Plymouth, and his children.
The judge said he had been driven to the conclusion "that the welfare of all three children is best served by there being no direct contact with Mr Harris" and there should be, at present, a reduced amount of indirect contact.
He said: "This is an immensely saddening case. It is also a tragedy - a tragedy all the more tragic because the outcome was, as it seems to me, unnecessary and almost entirely avoidable. It is in essence the story of a loving and devoted father and his three daughters. The daughters do not live with him following his divorce from their mother. Mother has residence. The daughters wanted and enjoyed contact with their father."
The judge said the contact was in no significant way opposed or thwarted by the mother, but "all three daughters have ended up opposed to and refusing to participate in contact. The virtually total breakdown of the relationship between the father and his daughters is not, in my judgment, the consequence of anything done or not done by the mother".
Mr Justice Munby, who said the mother and children "desperately" needed a breathing space from Mr Harris, continued: "Here, as it seems to me, the non-residential father's estrangement from his daughters has been directly brought about by his own obstinacy, pig-headedness and blindness.
"Mr Harris is, if truth be told, the author of his own immense misfortune. He is also, even though he probably cannot recognise it, the cause of the blighting of his daughters' lives."
The mother and children had been left, he said, with a "beleaguered feeling of being stalked and harassed".
Mr Harris, who is serving a ten-month sentence for contempt of court, had his application for release from prison rejected.
Mr Justice Munby, sitting in the court's Family Division in London, took the unusual step of giving his ruling in open court in an "immensely saddening case" involving contact between Mark Harris, 42, of Plymouth, and his children.
The judge said he had been driven to the conclusion "that the welfare of all three children is best served by there being no direct contact with Mr Harris" and there should be, at present, a reduced amount of indirect contact.
He said: "This is an immensely saddening case. It is also a tragedy - a tragedy all the more tragic because the outcome was, as it seems to me, unnecessary and almost entirely avoidable. It is in essence the story of a loving and devoted father and his three daughters. The daughters do not live with him following his divorce from their mother. Mother has residence. The daughters wanted and enjoyed contact with their father."
The judge said the contact was in no significant way opposed or thwarted by the mother, but "all three daughters have ended up opposed to and refusing to participate in contact. The virtually total breakdown of the relationship between the father and his daughters is not, in my judgment, the consequence of anything done or not done by the mother".
Mr Justice Munby, who said the mother and children "desperately" needed a breathing space from Mr Harris, continued: "Here, as it seems to me, the non-residential father's estrangement from his daughters has been directly brought about by his own obstinacy, pig-headedness and blindness.
"Mr Harris is, if truth be told, the author of his own immense misfortune. He is also, even though he probably cannot recognise it, the cause of the blighting of his daughters' lives."
The mother and children had been left, he said, with a "beleaguered feeling of being stalked and harassed".
Mr Harris, who is serving a ten-month sentence for contempt of court, had his application for release from prison rejected.
Saturday 24 March 2001
Mark Harris Jailed
IN THE HIGH COURT IN LONDON YESTERDAY , a loving & devoted dad was JAILED FOR 10 MONTHS for trying to remain a parent to his three daughters (10, 11 & 14).
Mark (36) came into contact with EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL a couple of years ago and I've kept in touch with him and his case ever since. He's a driving instructor from Plymouth - a thoroughly nice, down to earth bloke, who just loves his children to bits, and (like all of us) doesn't understand why the family courts have failed to stop his ex wife's determined efforts to exclude him for his daughters' lives FOR NO GOOD REASON.
MARK'S "CRIMES"
Mark was jailed for 10 months and fined £500 for contempt of court, because he did the following:
Greeted his children when he encountered them, when apparently he should have vanished immediately he saw them;
Drove into an "exclusion zone" in the hope that he might see his kids whilst he was conducting driving lessons;
Handed a birthday present, and a note to his children without first having them vetted by social services (although no complaint was made about the gift or note);
Had his girlfriend send to one of his daughters a copy of an article in the local press which reported on Mark's campaigning for reform of the family court system. (This is the closest Judge Munby got to revealing his true motive in jailing Mark - more on that below);
Sent a postdated cheque to the mother for £900 saying she could cash it if she persuaded one daughter to start seeing him again.
These terrible actions were found to be in defiance of court orders and justified Mark being immediately removed from the court in handcuffs.
Judge Munby said that, in sentencing Mark, he had taken account of the fact that none of the breaches involved any violence or threats of violence. He said he had also considered the fact that all these actions were motivated by Mark's desire to re-establish his parenting relationship with his daughters.
It was accepted that there was no evidence of any harm being caused by any of these breaches of various court orders.
I would add that, previously, Munby had commented that, with all these orders and injunctions which had accumulated over time, their effect was difficult even for lawyers to decipher, let alone someone trying to represent themselves in court. (Mark has mainly represented himself for financial reasons, while the mother has run up hundreds of thousands of pounds on Legal Aid.) Munby conveniently forgot this when he sent Mark down yesterday for 10 months for failing to obey the various orders.
THE WISDOM OF JUDGE JAMES MUNBY
He said that Mark's worst punishment was self inflicted, because these actions (and his "other antics which did not involve contempt" of court) meant that his children now wanted to have nothing whatever to do with him. Munby called this Mark's sheer "stupidity".
Well, just who is the stupid one here? Mark is a man who has tried everything within his power to overcome the poisoning of his children's minds against him. He is a loving, devoted father (Munby's own words from previous day's Judgment), a decent, hardworking man who simply can't understand why the State would support this amoral behaviour. How is he supposed to re-build his relationship with children he can never see or contact!?
It is the State and this Judge who are teaching these children to hate their father and to treat his attempts to see them with utter contempt. Now this Judge has made him into a convict. Yet these same courts routinely say that they can't jail mothers for breaching contact orders with impunity, because jailing the mother would not be in the best interests of the children. But jailing the father for trivialities is perfectly acceptable!?
THE REAL REASON MARK WAS JAILED
Mark has led a number of protests outside Judges' houses, supported by many other separated parents who have also been excluded from their children's lives for no good reason. More are planned. These protests have been hitting home and the judges want them to stop. So, in my view, they decided to imprison the ringleader for 10 months - it's as simple and disgraceful as that!
Of course, most separated parents in Mark's position give up because it's virtually impossible to get anywhere through the courts, who continue to show no interest in promoting shared parenting, as Parliament wanted. Family court judges are in contempt of Parliament - they treat public opinion with contempt every day.
Had Mark given up and abandoned his children, and then tried to pick up with them a year or so later, the courts would have said his relationship could not be re-established with them because he had not made any effort to keep in touch! As a parent who can't live with your children, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't!
WILL MARK DIE IN PRISON?
Immediately before the jailing of Mark, I had lunch with him. His lawyers were not expecting him to be jailed, but he was clearly a bit frightened and apprehensive. He told me that if he was sent to jail, he would go on an immediate TOTAL HUNGER STRIKE - no food or liquid - and he would commit suicide at the first opportunity. I pray that will not happen, although I can understand the despair Mark must be feeling.
MUNBY'S MADNESS
I hope the Authorities will act swiftly to correct Munby's Madness, before Mark's children suffer an irrevocable blow that could have an appalling impact on the rest of their lives.
I would also hope that Munby will not be allowed to have any further involvement in this, probably the worst British access case in history. It has been going on for many years and Munby was supposed to sort it out. Instead, he has made a bad situation far worse.
Although the children, post divorce, had enjoyed good "contact" with their dad, that contact was allowed to dwindle to nothing because the courts failed to support the children's right to both parents. Munby followed the usual line British courts take, of ordering the status quo - ie. no contact, save that he may send Christmas cards, birthday cards, and a summer postcard.
Munby's rambling Judgment (the day before the committal) is flawed in many respects. He placed reliance on an Expert witness he found to be deceitful, omitted important facts which supported Mark's case, and displayed bias and a total lack of understanding of the dynamics involved in a high conflict children case.
Assuming Mark stays alive, I have not the slightest doubt that Munby will be appealed and that ultimately this case will come before the European Court of Human Rights.
I was accompanied in court yesterday by two of my oldest and best friends who were both utterly stunned by what they saw. One is visiting from the USA, and I must say I felt ashamed of Judge Munby's brutal display of power and total lack of compassion. In common with most people who have had direct experience of the British family court system, my faith in British "Justice" has reached rock bottom. No doubt Judge Munby would call me stupid too!
Mark (36) came into contact with EQUAL PARENTING COUNCIL a couple of years ago and I've kept in touch with him and his case ever since. He's a driving instructor from Plymouth - a thoroughly nice, down to earth bloke, who just loves his children to bits, and (like all of us) doesn't understand why the family courts have failed to stop his ex wife's determined efforts to exclude him for his daughters' lives FOR NO GOOD REASON.
MARK'S "CRIMES"
Mark was jailed for 10 months and fined £500 for contempt of court, because he did the following:
Greeted his children when he encountered them, when apparently he should have vanished immediately he saw them;
Drove into an "exclusion zone" in the hope that he might see his kids whilst he was conducting driving lessons;
Handed a birthday present, and a note to his children without first having them vetted by social services (although no complaint was made about the gift or note);
Had his girlfriend send to one of his daughters a copy of an article in the local press which reported on Mark's campaigning for reform of the family court system. (This is the closest Judge Munby got to revealing his true motive in jailing Mark - more on that below);
Sent a postdated cheque to the mother for £900 saying she could cash it if she persuaded one daughter to start seeing him again.
These terrible actions were found to be in defiance of court orders and justified Mark being immediately removed from the court in handcuffs.
Judge Munby said that, in sentencing Mark, he had taken account of the fact that none of the breaches involved any violence or threats of violence. He said he had also considered the fact that all these actions were motivated by Mark's desire to re-establish his parenting relationship with his daughters.
It was accepted that there was no evidence of any harm being caused by any of these breaches of various court orders.
I would add that, previously, Munby had commented that, with all these orders and injunctions which had accumulated over time, their effect was difficult even for lawyers to decipher, let alone someone trying to represent themselves in court. (Mark has mainly represented himself for financial reasons, while the mother has run up hundreds of thousands of pounds on Legal Aid.) Munby conveniently forgot this when he sent Mark down yesterday for 10 months for failing to obey the various orders.
THE WISDOM OF JUDGE JAMES MUNBY
He said that Mark's worst punishment was self inflicted, because these actions (and his "other antics which did not involve contempt" of court) meant that his children now wanted to have nothing whatever to do with him. Munby called this Mark's sheer "stupidity".
Well, just who is the stupid one here? Mark is a man who has tried everything within his power to overcome the poisoning of his children's minds against him. He is a loving, devoted father (Munby's own words from previous day's Judgment), a decent, hardworking man who simply can't understand why the State would support this amoral behaviour. How is he supposed to re-build his relationship with children he can never see or contact!?
It is the State and this Judge who are teaching these children to hate their father and to treat his attempts to see them with utter contempt. Now this Judge has made him into a convict. Yet these same courts routinely say that they can't jail mothers for breaching contact orders with impunity, because jailing the mother would not be in the best interests of the children. But jailing the father for trivialities is perfectly acceptable!?
THE REAL REASON MARK WAS JAILED
Mark has led a number of protests outside Judges' houses, supported by many other separated parents who have also been excluded from their children's lives for no good reason. More are planned. These protests have been hitting home and the judges want them to stop. So, in my view, they decided to imprison the ringleader for 10 months - it's as simple and disgraceful as that!
Of course, most separated parents in Mark's position give up because it's virtually impossible to get anywhere through the courts, who continue to show no interest in promoting shared parenting, as Parliament wanted. Family court judges are in contempt of Parliament - they treat public opinion with contempt every day.
Had Mark given up and abandoned his children, and then tried to pick up with them a year or so later, the courts would have said his relationship could not be re-established with them because he had not made any effort to keep in touch! As a parent who can't live with your children, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't!
WILL MARK DIE IN PRISON?
Immediately before the jailing of Mark, I had lunch with him. His lawyers were not expecting him to be jailed, but he was clearly a bit frightened and apprehensive. He told me that if he was sent to jail, he would go on an immediate TOTAL HUNGER STRIKE - no food or liquid - and he would commit suicide at the first opportunity. I pray that will not happen, although I can understand the despair Mark must be feeling.
MUNBY'S MADNESS
I hope the Authorities will act swiftly to correct Munby's Madness, before Mark's children suffer an irrevocable blow that could have an appalling impact on the rest of their lives.
I would also hope that Munby will not be allowed to have any further involvement in this, probably the worst British access case in history. It has been going on for many years and Munby was supposed to sort it out. Instead, he has made a bad situation far worse.
Although the children, post divorce, had enjoyed good "contact" with their dad, that contact was allowed to dwindle to nothing because the courts failed to support the children's right to both parents. Munby followed the usual line British courts take, of ordering the status quo - ie. no contact, save that he may send Christmas cards, birthday cards, and a summer postcard.
Munby's rambling Judgment (the day before the committal) is flawed in many respects. He placed reliance on an Expert witness he found to be deceitful, omitted important facts which supported Mark's case, and displayed bias and a total lack of understanding of the dynamics involved in a high conflict children case.
Assuming Mark stays alive, I have not the slightest doubt that Munby will be appealed and that ultimately this case will come before the European Court of Human Rights.
I was accompanied in court yesterday by two of my oldest and best friends who were both utterly stunned by what they saw. One is visiting from the USA, and I must say I felt ashamed of Judge Munby's brutal display of power and total lack of compassion. In common with most people who have had direct experience of the British family court system, my faith in British "Justice" has reached rock bottom. No doubt Judge Munby would call me stupid too!
Tuesday 2 January 2001
Western Mail - MAN JAILED FOR SEEING CHILDREN IS OFFERED JOB.
A BUSINESSMAN has offered a job to a father jailed for trying to see his children.
Port Talbot company owner Pat Lyons is so angry at the sentence handed out to Plymouth driving instructor Mark Harris that he has offered him a job.
Mr Lyons, a member of the Equal Parenting Council, is helping organise a protest outside the home of the judge who jailed Mr Harris last month.
The 36-year-old Plymouth man was jailed for 10 months two weeks ago and fined pounds 500 for contempt of court for trying to see his three daughters, even though he had been barred from doing so.
Mr Harris, who is a leading campaigner for reform of the Family Court System, is on hunger strike at Pentonville Prison.
Yesterday Mr Lyons, 41, who owns PJL Survey, said he felt so angry at the case that he had offered Mr Harris full-time employment while he is in prison.
"I feel so strongly about this that I'm quite prepared to support this man any way I can.
"I've spoken to his mother this morning and she is very concerned.
"Why should a father be jailed simply for saying hello to his children?"
Mr Lyons said he had sent a fulltime contract to Mr Harris for a 30hour week based on the minimum wage to his prison hospital and would pay him however long he stayed in prison.
"I'm quite prepared to fund his wages for the full 10 months and if, when he comes out, he would like to come down here for two to three weeks to get his head back together then I will be happy to support him."
Mr Lyons said he was taking the action as a concerned father.
"The Equal Parenting Council wants to see parents, both mothers and fathers, treated equally under the law after divorce or separation."
Mark Harris was jailed at the High Court in London on March 23.
Among the charges he faced were that he drove into an exclusion zone while
conducting a driving lesson in the hope that he might see them and handed a birthday present and note to one of them without it being vetted by social services.
Port Talbot company owner Pat Lyons is so angry at the sentence handed out to Plymouth driving instructor Mark Harris that he has offered him a job.
Mr Lyons, a member of the Equal Parenting Council, is helping organise a protest outside the home of the judge who jailed Mr Harris last month.
The 36-year-old Plymouth man was jailed for 10 months two weeks ago and fined pounds 500 for contempt of court for trying to see his three daughters, even though he had been barred from doing so.
Mr Harris, who is a leading campaigner for reform of the Family Court System, is on hunger strike at Pentonville Prison.
Yesterday Mr Lyons, 41, who owns PJL Survey, said he felt so angry at the case that he had offered Mr Harris full-time employment while he is in prison.
"I feel so strongly about this that I'm quite prepared to support this man any way I can.
"I've spoken to his mother this morning and she is very concerned.
"Why should a father be jailed simply for saying hello to his children?"
Mr Lyons said he had sent a fulltime contract to Mr Harris for a 30hour week based on the minimum wage to his prison hospital and would pay him however long he stayed in prison.
"I'm quite prepared to fund his wages for the full 10 months and if, when he comes out, he would like to come down here for two to three weeks to get his head back together then I will be happy to support him."
Mr Lyons said he was taking the action as a concerned father.
"The Equal Parenting Council wants to see parents, both mothers and fathers, treated equally under the law after divorce or separation."
Mark Harris was jailed at the High Court in London on March 23.
Among the charges he faced were that he drove into an exclusion zone while
conducting a driving lesson in the hope that he might see them and handed a birthday present and note to one of them without it being vetted by social services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
