It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A mum battered and slashed to within an inch of her life by her jealous ex-fiance has been threatened with jail if she refuses to write to him in prison.
Horrified Natalie Allman, 29, has been ordered by a judge to send letters three times a year to brutal Jason Hughes who tortured her for seven hours in front of their twin sons.
Under parental rights laws, Natalie is being forced to send updates on the five-year-olds along with photos.
The boys were just two when they saw their father batter their mum with his weight-lifting dumbbells, slash her throat with an Army knife and try to suffocate her with a pillow.
If Natalie refuses to write, she will be held in contempt of court and risks being locked up herself.
Natalie ended her relationship with Hughes in February 2012 two months before their planned wedding because of his excessive drinking.
The spurned Territorial Army part-time soldier, who was still staying at their house in Hereford, went berserk one night after discovering she was seeing someone else.
Miraculously she survived the attack despite eight wounds to her head and five broken bones in her face.
In August 2012 Hughes was sentenced to nine years at Worcester Crown Court for malicious wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.
His lawyer said: “His intention was to cause a hideous scar she could not hide if she had dressed up to look pretty. He was trying to make her look ugly to other men.”
But last January she was shocked to receive a letter from Hughes’s lawyer saying he was applying for a Residence and Contact Order under Section 8 of the Children Act of 1989.
The negotiated terms stated that she would have to send letters three times a year – at Easter, September and December.
The order requires that the letters include “an update regarding the children’s general progress, both at nursery/school and socially, to include details of their health and emotional development”.
The letters must also include an “update photograph of each child no smaller than 6 inches by 4 inches”.
“But then I read the notes at the end. They said, ‘If you do not comply with this contact order you may be held in contempt of court and be committed to prison or fined’.
Natalie fears the contact with her attacker – who could be out of prison as early as March next year – will only encourage him to come and find them.
She said: “I have been promised we’ll be protected and we’ll have alarms fitted in the house as well as a geographical ban stopping him from coming to our town.
“But how can I trust the authorities when they have made me do this?”
originally posted by: Iamthatbish
She needs to "comply" as horribly as possible. Like smeared ink, bad pictures. Wet unreadable mail.
Although, I wonder if others have had repercussions for doing this previously. I'm certain there's some way to get around this stupidity. My heart goes to this woman and her children.
ETA: The children should write how they feel about having to see what this man did to their mother every single letter! While I feel scars show what you've overcome, idt children understand that.
originally posted by: IntroduceALittleIrony
I read the article and couldn't find mention of it, but I'd be looking at which state this is happening in and start there. I can tell you right now the state where I live would not do this. Even if it wasn't but one slap all rights would be revoked, and a social worker would be called in for the simple fact that it was done in front of the kids.
Part II Orders with respect to children in family proceedings
Residence, Contact, Prohibited Steps and Specific Issue Orders
Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 outlines the orders which can issued by the court. A ‘contact order’ outlines the requirements, of the person the child resides with, to allow contact with another person. A ‘prohibited steps order’ prevents a parent from exercising their full parental responsibility without consent of the court. A ‘residence order’ puts in place the arrangements for whom a child should live with. A ‘specific issue order’ relates to directions given from the court to address a query that has arisen regarding parental responsibility for a child. Section 8 orders cannot be made in regards to children who are looked after; with the exception of the residence order. When an application is made to the court for a section 8 order the court takes into account: the nature of the proposed application; the connection the person has to the child; the disruption that could be caused to the child and, if the child is being looked after by the local authority: the local authorities plans for the child’s future and the wishes of the child’s parents. A person who gains a residence order for a child will hold parental responsibility for the time the order is in place. Despite this, the Act forbids anyone to change the child’s surname or remove them from the United Kingdom without permission from all those with parental responsibility or with express permission from the court. Under section 63(3) of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the court has powers to punish those who do not abide by the ruling set out in the residence order.
originally posted by: dollukka
She should ask restraining order due domestic violence... she needs a lawyer. She doesnt have to deal this kind of S#/t.
originally posted by: Atsbhct
The judges statement says she MAY be held in contempt or face prison charges if she doesn't comply, which is a pretty standard end statement for court orders. In all likelihood, nothing would happen to her if she refused to comply with this, and she could make her case in court. Her next step should be a no contact order. As he is obviously violent, and she's won her domestic violence case, no judge can force her to make contact with her abuser. The courts would end up having to appoint a person to send him such information.