Language; what we say and how it's interpreted are so important.
When a case, any case goes to court, evidence is produced by the prosecution and the defence. The case is conducted according to judicial procedure; the law. In a family court it's more often than not the parties solicitor who speaks for them in court and in a criminal case there'll be a barrister for the defence, and a barrister presenting the case for prosecution.
In either case, aside from any evidence produced it's a battle of words between the solicitors facing one another in a family court and the barristers in a criminal court.
What they say influences a jury's decision, no doubt about it and will influence a judge or a group of judges if the case doesn't go before a jury.
I think this is both important and relevant as we are discussing not just the welfare ramifications of GP's going to court to obtain a contact order, but also the legal process.
It's interesting that a poster who repeatedly asks for 'proof' of others to support what they're posting, having been told by one that they don't have access to that proof, and suggesting they themselves find proof to refute their argument, has so far failed to do so.
It is interesting that a poster has referred to 'links' they have read, which they believe supports a poster's argument, having been asked if they would provide those links, has failed to do so. Perhaps you could give us those links Starblaze.
It is IMO disappointing that some posters feel the need to revert to accusing others of "scaremongering" and "gas lighting" and that one poster goodness knows why, feels it appropriate to refer to another as "a sicko".
The language we use is important, it can either elevate our argument, whether or not it's agreed with, or it can diminish even a good argument if insults, in general or of a personal nature, are introduced.