Reactive Attachment Disorder and the Care System
I am currently highlighting the question as to whether the psychological damage caused to children who have been taken into care at a young age is caused by the care system or by their treatment prior to entering care.
The research that is relevant to this is summarised here and basically says that reactive attachment disorder can be avoided if a stable attachment is achieved from between 4 and 6 months. Previously I have seen an argument that the key period is 6-18 months and that not having a stable attachment established in that period causes lifelong problems.
Some information is difficult to find, but some information is not so difficult to find. It is possible to find out the ages of children taken into compulsory care. In the year 1st April 2014-31st March 2015 (the last period for which the detailed information is available).
1,190 children were taken into care in the first week of their lives
1,576 children were taken into care in the first month of their lives
2,000 were taken into care in the first 4 months.
270 were taken into care in months 4-7
and 2,740 babies of 1 or under were taken into care.
2,800 children aged 1-4 were taken into care
2,680 children aged 5-9 were taken into care
2,360 children aged 10-15 were taken into care.
220 children aged 16 and over were taken into care.
It is not unreasonable to say that 2,180 children were taken into care by the age of 6 months. Hence any RAD suffered by those children occurs as a result of their treatment after being taken into care. It is not a difficult logical concept.
It is, however, a simple conclusion that many children are damaged by being taken into care. Exactly how the damage occurs is a separate question, but the logic is unavoidable.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 7:08 pm1 comments
Monday, August 08, 2016
Secret Prisoners - the campaign continues
There have been two stories related to secret imprisonment reported today. One by PA has been published in a number of outlets including This one. The other was in the Daily Mail.
The cases have a number of common features. Someone is imprisoned "for their own good". There are all sorts of assessments as to their capacity. In the end they have run away and are not now in the English and Welsh jurisdiction.
In the Kathy Danby case (which relates to her granddaughter) Kathy was imprisoned for meeting her. The judge at the time said Granny (aged in her 70s) had to be imprisoned because when she met her granddaughter afterwards the granddaughter was upset and tried to run away. From a scientific perspective it is a fact that the granddaughter ran away. However, she continued running away even though she had not met her grandmother for 2 1/2 years. I would argue, therefore, that the evidence is that she runs away because she is not happy having her liberty constrained by the state.
This is actually a common problem with care proceedings of all sorts. Children are upset when they stop seeing their relatives. Hence contact is stopped. This used to happen with hospital visiting, but the issue was studied and it was found that the psychological trauma caused by stopping contact was in fact much greater than the superficial upset cased by breaks in contact. Hence parents were encouraged to visit children in hospital and potentially stay overnight. The Danish care system recognises this as well. However, the English care system takes a very different attitude. I have seen evidence to substantiate the argument that the approach in England is wrong. I have seen no evidence to substantiate the argument that it is right.
In the second case the courts relied on an international treaty that had not been ratified either by Canada or Zimbawe to imprison a 15 year old (now 16 year old) boy who had no right to remain in the country beyond a visit. Because he had no valid immigration status he could not be educated. Unsurprisingly he tried to escape this, but was recaptured on a number of occasions until he did a Julian Assange and went to live in the Zimbabwean Embassy. He then escaped from there to Zimbabwe.
It sounds absurd. However, it did happen.
In both cases reporting restrictions act to prevent the prisoner from speaking out and challenging the claims of the state against them. Where is the accountability in this?
It should be remembered that the courts rely on expert "opinion". This is the opinion of employees of the local authority and other people who depend on the la for their income. This does not strike me as "independent" expert opinion.
In the second case I have seen reports on the 16 year old from Zimbabwe. These show very little in common with the assertions from the English experts that were used to justify imprisoning the person concerned for about a year.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 4:18 pm0 comments
Saturday, June 25, 2016
Section 50 and negotiations with the EU - delay is key.
Given that Brexit is now certain the UK has a challenging negotiation. It was to be expected that the UK would not immediately give notice to the EU under Article 50. What the UK needs to do ideally is to negotiate the settlement in substance before giving notice. Time and delay is in the UK's interest as is obvious from the comments by the EU Commission. The challenges to negotiate is how much the UK has to pay to the EU for access to the Single Market and what the continuing rules on freedom of movement will be.
If the UK were to cease being a member of the EU without some solutions to many of the major issues then it would cause considerable economic disruption (beyond what is in the financial markets). On the other hand this would not really impact the EU that much. Hence the UK needs to avoid being forced into the corner and delaying on giving notice is the only solution for this.
Norway vs the UK - Brexit could mean 10 Euros per person (per year) higher net contributions to the EU budget.
Because the UK's realistic alternative to the EU is membership of the EEA it is worth comparing Norway's situation to that of the UK. This is a relevant story about how being in the EEA (not having to follow the CAP or CFP) can mean countries having to follow laws and regulations the setting of which countries have not participated in. However, there is also the question about cash.
Full fact have looked at the issue of what our net contribution to the EU is. They conclude it was about £8.5bn in 2015. Norway was a lot less. Their contribution according to This page from the Norwegian government is around 388+447+6+25 Million Euro per year. (ie 886 million Euro - see page for detailed breakdown. However, Norway has a population of only 5m and we have a population of 64m. If you look at the per capita contribution it is £132 in the UK and 177 Euro in norway. The Euro Sterling Exchange rate has varied recently from almost 1.5 to 1.25. Yesterday was 1.267. Converting £132 at that rate gives EUR 167.
The pound has declined because of the threat of brexit on the UK economy. However, on the current exchange rate on a per capita basis were the UK to leave the EU and remain in the EEA (as the agreement says) upon reasonable assumptions as detailed above then our net contribution to the EU would be higher.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 3:42 pm0 comments
Thursday, May 19, 2016
John Hemming's Statement following Supreme Court upholding injunction"I am surprised that the Supreme Court have upheld this injunction. The logical conclusion of this is that gossip about anyone with children will become a criminal offence subject to a potential penalty of 2 years's imprisonment.
"It is important to note that the injunction covers people talking in pubs, gossiping over the garden fence, or twittering on the internet. All of these could potentially see an application for committal for contempt of court. That comes with large amounts of legal costs and up to 2 years imprisonment. One would assume that it would not be assumed that this would only apply to claimants who have a large amount of money, but also everyone else. Such a constraint on freedom of speech is something that the House of Lords Judicial Committee of the last millennium would not have supported. I am surprised that the Supreme Court does.
"It is to be recognised that injunctions are still being used to cover up malpractice by public officials. I know of a live injunction at the moment that is doing exactly that. Obviously the government is in a position to pass legislation to free up speech in the UK. That is what needs to happen.
"Clearly the Supreme Court have not learnt from the lesson of King Canute that there are realities that it is not practical to resist. PJS and others should really study what happened in respect of Barbra Streisand when she tried to constrain freedom of speech. Lord Toulson is, of course, right.posted by John Hemming
¶ 8:47 am0 comments
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Barristers, Conflicts of Interests and the Family Courts
I have been having a debate with various Family Court barristers as to what the rules are in respect of a barrister taking on a case for a parent when they previously have taken on a case for the local authority the parent is facing in the court.
The rules on the Bar Standards Board website are difficult to link to clearly. The basic rules can be found from here.
The relevant rule is:
rC21 You must not accept instructions to act in a particular matter if:
-3. there is a conflict of interest between the prospective client and one or more of your former or existing clients in respect of the particular matter unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to your acting in such circumstances; or
If, therefore, we consider the case of a barrister considering whether they should accept instructions to act for a parent Mr Smith against the Huntingdonshire County Council. This particular barrister had earlier acted for Huntingdonshire against Mr & Mrs Jones.
It is clear that Huntingdonshire is either a former or existing client. It is also clear that there is a conflict of interest between Mr Smith and Huntingdonshire in the "particular matter".
Hence the barrister should not accept the instruction: unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to your acting in such circumstances;
I don't think there is anything unclear about this. It is clearly the case that this rule is not being followed properly for family proceedings quite frequently, however.
The rules for solicitors are easier to find here are are quite similar. (As they should be).
I have now spoken to the Bar Standards Council. It is clear that there is some lack of clarity in the wording of rule -3. It would be clearer if it said:
-3. If you have clients or former clients in respect of the particular matter and there is a conflict of interest between the prospective client and those former or existing clients in respect of the particular matter unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to your acting in such circumstances; or
-3. there is a conflict of interest in respect of the particular matter between the prospective client and one or more of your former or existing clients unless all of the clients who have an interest in the particular matter give their informed consent to your acting in such circumstances; or
Either of those draftings is clear. The current drafting does not make it clear that it is only clients or former clients relating to the same matter as that for which someone is requesting someone to act.
I think the BSB are working on the narrow definition of the rule. It must be very rare that this happens. That, however, in my view means that the rule needs to be changed. It is not equality of arms for someone to unknowingly instruct someone to represent them who is effectively on a retainer to the other party. It does, of course, depend substantially, but not entirely on the volume of instructions that someone gets from the other party. I don't personally think that permission is needed from former clients for a barrister to be instructed to act against them. However, there really does have to be transparency to the prospective client as to how dependent, both their solicitor and their barrister is on funding from another party to the case.
From the perspective of someone external to the system the drafting of the rule looks OK, but that is only because of the uncertainty. This is an issue I will continue working on.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 4:44 pm6 comments
Sunday, April 24, 2016
If the UK leaves the EU it does not automatically leave the EEA
It has been suggested to me that the UK's membership of the EEA is separate to its membership of the EU. The EEA agreement is here and the UK is a signatory rather than the EU on behalf of the UK.
This actually means that leaving the EU without leaving the EEA has no effect on freedom of movement - one of the big arguments.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 7:14 pm2 comments
Alternatives to The EU
What is good about the video below is that it simple takes part of the arguments of the people who wish to leave the EU and puts them together.
I have looked at this issue before. UKIP used to propose the EEA which means not having a vote and just being consulted on the rules that the UK has to follow.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 9:51 am0 comments
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Trade agreements and the EU
It is interesting that Barack Obama has been clear about what is entirely obvious in terms of trade agreements. The EU is a Common Market. It starts out as a trade agreement. It has rules as to how the trade agreement's detailed rules change, but it is a trade agreement. There is a debate about establishing an agreement between the EU and the US which is called TTIP. However, the UK should not expect to establish trade agreements before the EU has completed its agreements. More importantly the terms of any agreement the UK has with other countries is likely to be essentially the same rules as in the larger regional trade agreements. Hence we end up in a situation in which we are subjected to rules that we have no control over.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 8:35 am2 comments
Monday, April 18, 2016
Court of Appeal Judgment on injunction - John Hemming comment
Comment by John Hemming: "The Court of Appeal are right to strike down the injunction. They are also right, however, to give leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. This issue needs to be resolved such that it is not subject to an almost immediate challenge. People generally need to know that they do not face jail for joking and gossiping. The media need to know what they can write without having to spend shedloads of cash with legal advisers before they put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard). The powerful need to know that if they don't want something on the front page of the newspaper they should not do it."
"In the end it is more important that this issue is properly resolved than it is resolved quickly. We need an answer that allows people to go about their daily lives knowing what the law is. There have been too many injunctions recently and that needs to come to an end."
"Additionally there is a difference between the way in which the European Court of Human Rights interpret qualified rights. Most judicial systems are subject to correction by a legislature, but the European Court is immune from any comments by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The result of this is that the judges can be more inclined to judicial activism away from general popular and democratic consent. That is an issue that clearly needs resolving."
posted by John Hemming
¶ 2:08 pm0 comments
Monday, April 11, 2016
Guardian decides newspaper name is a state secretWhat is interesting about this guardian article is that they have decided that naming the Sunday Mail is potentially in breach of the court order (which I have not seen). They do, however, reveal that if you want to confirm the names involved you have to go to Scotland. Hence as that is the hardest part of the process I would presume that if they are right about naming the outlet they are wrong about naming the country.
Still it is all a bit silly really. My big worry about the legal aspects here is that the people who are being gagged (not the newspapers, but the people who want to talk about what happened to them) cannot sensibly take the financial risk of defending their position in court. Unless there is a guarantee costs won't be awarded against them they are forced into a legal corner.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 8:00 am0 comments
Thursday, April 07, 2016
Injunctions, the Streisand Effect and Spycatcher
There is no sense me writing much about The Streisand Effect. It suffices to read the wikipedia article I have linked to and note that as with Ryan Giggs taken legal action to prevent something being publicised can actually draw attention to it. We have that now with an injunction that has been sustained by the Court of Appeal on privacy.
It always seems a bit odd that such relatively minor things are made state secrets ... for those with enough money to spend on the lawyers. What would be a one or two day story at the most then becomes a running sore that gets far more attention than just having the one day story.
The House of Lords decision in Spycatcher was clearly right. I have linked to the judgment.
" If Mr. Wright were to
publish a second book in America or Australia or both and it were
to become readily available in this country, as has happened in
regard to his first book, newspapers which published its contents
would have as good a defence as the respondents in the present
In essence what is in the public domain in Australia cannot be seen as being secret in the UK. (or more precisely England and Wales)
posted by John Hemming
¶ 6:54 pm0 comments
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Animated political map of Europe 1000ad-2000ad
This is an interesting thing to look at. UK history has been relatively static particularly since 1700. However, the continent has historically been quite fluid. Not so much since 1945, but still some changes. posted by John Hemming
¶ 12:58 pm0 comments
Friday, March 11, 2016
Home Alone - law and cases in the UK and abroad
Justice for Families has been publicly campaigning on the issue of the law in respect of children left at home without parental or other adult supervision. Our biggest concern is that the law is not clear. The government claim that parents are allowed to decide whether their child is mature enough to be left alone. That, however, is not true. What happens is that either the police or local authority social workers decide whether in their opinion the parents have neglected their child.
What is most unfair is when parents are prosecuted or have their children taken off them for something which they have done reasonably and with the best intentions for their child/children.
There is, in fact, no published information about what does happen and when action is taken. Some of the cases are covered by family court secrecy which makes it much harder to review the case. Others have injunctions on the criminal cases which make looking at the case harder. However, here are a few examples:
Dad left a toddler in the car for five minutes whilst getting Calpol. Dad was convicted in the magistrates court, but this decision was reversed on appeal.
Mum, who was a working single mother, left the house before the babysitter arrived. The babysitter was delayed and turned up after the landlord had called the police. The toddler had filled her nappy and had a nappy rash. Mum was cautioned by the police and her baby was forcibly adopted into another family. The local authority had recently increased their adoption targets.
Dad left his 8 and 6 year olds at home whilst he went to the bank. The children were tired and did not want to go to the bank. The police knocked on the door searching for evidence as to a the murder of Mohammed Saleem and the children admitted to being home alone. The children were taken into care and dad was banned from caring for them.
Mum and her partner went on holiday leaving another adult to look after the 12 year old. The other adult did not sleep in the same house as the 12 year old. The teachers called the police who prosecuted mum and her partner, but they were found not guilty.
The only published guidance in England is from the NSPCC here. Personally I think it is over the top to say that a child must be 12 before you can go to the shops without the child. Particularly in an era with mobile phones and other communication systems it should not be necessary for a child to be dragged out of the house because of state edict.
It appears to me that the police and social workers are following the NSPCC guidance when it has no statutory basis. There are places where this guidance is the law, however.
Addendum 14/03/16 - The NSPCC spokesperson has just said (on the Radio) that leaving an average 10 year old whilst going to the shops for an hour should be OK.
What the UK Needs
Firstly, we need to tell people what is happening and this needs to be discussed publicly. There is no collated information as to what decisions police and social workers are taking.
Secondly, we need to have a public debate about what the risks are and what more detailed and whether more flexible guidance is needed than that from the NSPCC. Many other countries such as Germany allow younger children to be regularly home alone. What about when the parents have a mobile phone and there is a 9 year old left at home able to speak to their parents whilst they go to the shops?
Thirdly, we need to consider what is optimal, what is ill advised and what should be criminal or require action from the local authority.
Finally, we need to be more supportive of parents who generally try to do what is best for their children. The judgment of parents should be treated with some respect.
The situation in other countries
This is a particularly useful document from the US Government which summarises the situation in the USA.
It includes: " Only three States currently
have laws regarding a minimum age for
leaving a child home alone. Illinois law
requires children to be 14 years old before
being left alone; in Maryland, the minimum
age is 8, while in Oregon, children must be
10 before being left home alone."This is an interesting court case in Canada where the courts decided to change the law such that children had to be 10 before being regularly left at home alone.
This is from Australia.
Germany and Switzerland seem to be quite tolerant of children left home alone during the day from about 7.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 5:42 pm0 comments
Monday, March 07, 2016
The EU and Democracy (making some reference to the referendum)
The debate about the EU has in many ways similarities to that in respect of the Scottish independence referendum. The SNP argument could in essence be summarised as "we can do a lot better on our own our problems are caused by London." The Leave argument is "we can to a lot better on our own our problems are caused by Brussels".
In any rational sense the wheels fell of the financial argument for Scottish independence as the price of oil plummeted. Although I expect oil prices to go back up (and there may even be a spike as a result of the cuts in investment) it remains a really tenuous argument.
The narrative on this issue, however, is difficult because it is easy for the Scottish Executive to blame everything on the UK parliament. The fundamental political debate that creates much division is about how to respond to the financial crisis of 2008 and the cut in GDP that resulted. There are many people (myself included) who do not like the consequences of cutting public expenditure on people. However, there are practical limits on what government can spend. We are, in fact, operating a Keynesian demand boost by running a continuing, but reducing deficit. However, public spending cuts in real terms are an inevitable consequence of the errors in public spending policy (increasing spending at a higher rate than the economy expands) prior to 2008. I have written about this in detail on this blog.
Hence were Scotland to be independent they would have to implement quite similar policies on a macroeconomic level even if they had enough oil taxation (which they would not have).
This in a sense highlights one of the difficulties of the merits of the debate in the public arena in respect of politics. There is reality. The Executive (normally the government) has to deal with reality. Reality is often not that popular. As reality is not that popular politicians are not that enthusiastic about defending reality in any detail and often reality gets left out of the public discourse.
Hence we have a public debate which is badly informed and leads to debates about structures (Scottish Independence, leaving the EU) which often would have no impact on the issues that cause the tension.
One big issue with the EU is that of migration. I can understand the difficulties for David Cameron of persuading the Eastern European political leaders to accept that we should stop subsidising migration to the UK from Eastern Europe.
I personally think that subsidising migration is to be avoided. It undermines the poorest in society in the area to where migrants are moving and often creates tensions between people. For example there are thousands of people who have moved to the UK to sell the Big Issue. This is subsidised by providing Child Tax Credit, Working Tax Credit and Housing Benefit to the people who do this. I have difficulty in finding any public policy benefit from this.
However, the fundamental problem is that we have been offered a deal by the other members of the EU. Realistically if we leave the EU we would be likely to be looking at an option similar to Norway. That is of being with the EEA (which is the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein - and temporarily Croatia whilst a candidate for EU membership). This has the same rules on availability of in work benefits as the EU. Furthermore the people we are negotiating with would be the same people as currently is the situation. To think that we might get a better deal on this issue (which must be one of the biggest) is not a rational position. The financial argument that we would save money by leaving is silly as can be seen from the fact that Norway pays a lot for access to the common market.
The problem with the public debate about the EU, however, is that again reality is often left out of the debate.
For example the EU is criticised for having rules about what shape a good quality banana should be. Well, if the EU is supposed to be a trade area obviously there has to be rules about what qualifies as a good quality banana. The distinction was made between Extra Quality, Class 1 and Class 2 bananas. Should we really have different rules in different countries about how to classify bananas? The EU rules are in fact much more picky about cucumbers.
Inherently having a trade area where the rules are the same throughout the trade area requires those countries that participate to agree on common rules. That means that the rules may not meet 100% support in each of the countries. Indeed that is quite unlikely.
The question then is whether we are likely to get more flexibility remaining in the structures of the EU or shouting on the outside. In the end we are likely to have a take it or leave it option. We would then be forced to take it as we need to be in the system in order to export. Importing is not a problem as a rule.
One of the biggest questions is how rules need to change before any expansion of the EU or EEA occurs. At the moment we can veto expansion until rules changes occur. However, in the EEA we would not be able to do that. This is really the killer argument against leaving the EU.
There are a lot of problems with the EU. We can put aside the debate about Human Rights as that is not relevant to the EU. The debate about Human Rights relates to the Council of Europe which is a completely different body. I personally am supportive of the 1998 Human Rights Act although critical of the lack of democratic accountability of the European Court of Human Rights (which should be subject to some guidance procedures in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, but is not). However, I will not look at this in any detail as it is not relevant to the EU debate.
Again we come back here to the question of how decisions are made and how separation of powers operate. The Executives (governments) are often quite remote from the legislatures and the public debates. Often very few people will properly defend the policies of the executives frequently because they don't understand the issue properly. Often the proper information is not really available. Hence the debate is dominated by the legislatures.
The UK model has a strong executive. The EU model has a much stronger executive where the legislature is really quite weak. Hence people tend to ignore the European Parliament.
There are many things wrong about how the EU operates. However, the alternative to its structures for a common market is much more opaque and resistant to challenge.
We can see this in the discussions about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Rather than policy papers that are discussed publicly and can be followed through the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament everything is being cobbled together in secret (as is necessary given the nature of the negotiation). If we leave the structures of the EU we will have to accept compromise, but it will be a compromise cobbled together in secret.
The change proposed to the way in which national parliaments can block EU legislation has been a long time coming and the movement away from talking about "ever closer union" are both good. One opens up the national debates on changes to EU rules. The latter puts a line in the sand against continuing centralisation. One of the difficulties with subsidiarity has been that it is good to say that decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level, However, the problem arises with the question as to who decides what is the lowest possible level. Continual pressure for "ever closer union" leads to more and more decisions being taken centrally. We must resist this.
Hence unenthusiastically I will be voting to remain. The structures really do need changing to introduce greater accountability and transparency would follow from that. However, the alternative would be much worse.
English Boundary Review Launched
The English Boundary review was launched today. These are the boundaries for the next General Election. We will know what they are in 2018.
What is interesting is looking at the division of English seats as proposed in 2013 to now.
Region 2010 Seats 2013 Proposal 2016
Eastern 58 56 57
East Midlands 46 44 44
London 73 68 68
North East 29 26 25
North West 75 68 68
South East * 83 81 81
South West 55 53 53
West Midlands 59 54 53
Ykshire/Humber 54 50 50
(Isle of Wight) 1 2 2
I would expect this mainly to have arisen from individual registration. To be fair there is an issue about people who are properly multiply registered in more than one constituency in that they should really only count once in one of the seats for the quota and whether the constituency matches the quota. It should be possible to work out how many of these there are now.
In the West Midlands I would expect quite a different set of proposals this time if the commission start at one side and go to the other side. That is simply because you would expect the middle to overlap by about 50%. However, only time will tell.
From a partisan perspective with a drop in the West Midlands and North East and an increase in Eastern of one seat, this analysis might benefit the conservatives by a seat. The details, however, are what matter. However, with England dropping a seat it may end up as a net zero.
The electorate and quota figures for the West Midlands Metropolitan area are:
Birmingham 686,804 9.19
Coventry 210,031 2.81
Dudley 239,405 3.20
Sandwell 215,484 2.88
Solihull 153,873 2.06
Walsall 186,960 2.50
Wolverhampton 170,212 2.28
WEST MIDLANDS 1,862,769 24.91
Birmingham, Edgbaston BC 62,795 -8,791 -12.28%
Birmingham, Erdington BC 62,552 -9,034 -12.62%
Birmingham, Hall Green BC 73,938 2,352 3.29%
Birmingham, Hodge Hill BC 73,173 1,587 2.22%
Birmingham, Ladywood BC 65,716 -5,870 -8.20%
Birmingham, Northfield BC 69,377 -2,209 -3.09%
Birmingham, Perry Barr BC 67,710 -3,876 -5.41%
Birmingham, Selly Oak BC 68,460 -3,126 -4.37%
Birmingham, Yardley BC 69,911 -1,675 -2.34%
Pat McFadden - what did he say that was sufficient to get him fired"May I ask the prime minister to reject the view that sees terrorist acts as always being a response or a reaction to what we in the West do? Does he agree that such an approach risks infantilising the terrorists and treating them like children, when the truth is that they are adults who are entirely responsible for what they do? No one forces them to kill innocent people in Paris or Beirut. Unless we are clear about that, we will fail even to understand the threat we face, let alone confront it and ultimately overcome it."
Whereas there is conflict in the world. Even though some of that conflict is caused by errors of foreign policy by the UK and other Western nations - that does not warrant the intentional murder of innocent people.
I do intend writing a summary of unjust acts of war looking how there is a continuum including what are called acts of terror and those which are called war crimes. Indeed those things overlap. However, for the Labour Leader to sack a minister because he said that in the end people are responsible for their own acts is something that will stay with the Labour Leader for many years. I am not surprised that this has caused resignations. It will have a continuing effect.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 9:01 pm0 comments
Monday, December 21, 2015
Forum Shopping in Public Family Law - emigrating to escape the system
It remains that until the courts allow independent experts who are not employees of the local authority or otherwise beholden to the local authority that parents will very often (but not always) not get a fair trial.
Simply put the bias in the evidence results in an almost inevitable bias in the conclusions. I will update this post with more detail when I get some time, but I thought it would be useful to put two links in to two of the organisations that help people once they have left the UK.
High numbers of babies taken at birthThis is one of a number of stories about the high numbers of babies taken at birth in England.
Any reader of this blog will now that this is not news. There is a well written research document that looks at this. It particularly looks at repeat removals. The original paper is here
The question that needs to be answered. However, is why other countries with exactly the same set of facts end up sending mum home to look after her baby when England takes the baby at birth. We know that this is the case because people leave the country to avoid children being removed at birth (aka Forum Shopping).
posted by John Hemming
¶ 12:54 pm3 comments
Monday, November 02, 2015
An analysis of the English Looked After Children Population
The government produces an annual statistical report of the numbers of children that are looked after by local authorities as at the end of March. This comes from the SSDA903 return produced by local authorities.
They compare this number to the number of children adopted from care each year. That, of course, is a statistical error as they are comparing numbers of children to numbers per year.
However, it is worth looking in a bit of detail at the numbers anyway:
The total number of children in looked after by local authorities (apart from short term placements) as at 31st March 2015 was 69,540. Of those 19,850 were voluntarily in care under S20 placements. 290 were in the youth justice system. That leaves 42,030 under interim or final care orders - I assume that also includes an EPO, 20 "freed for adoption." That means they were identified as needing adoption by 30 December 2005 and still have not been adopted. (See A&S v Lancashire County Council for an example of this). 7,320 had a placement order for adoption (which was the system introduced in 2006). 40 were "detained for child protection". This is what people call police protection (or sometimes a police protection order).
Hence we have 19,850+290 who are not really in the target for adoption.
Another way of looking at the looked after population is by age. 3,710 babies (under 1), 10,120 infants (under 5), 14,310 5-9 year olds, 26,140 10-15 year olds and 15,270 children over 15.
Sadly the table A1 in the Statistical First Release does not distinguish between those on S20 and those not on S20.
Let us now consider the children adopted. That is table E1 in the SFR. 5,330 children were adopted from care. 230 were babies, 4,050 infants, 990 5-9 and 60 10-15. There was at least one child over 16 adopted from care.
Unsurprisingly it is mainly under 5s that are adopted (that is why I get the department to do a special analysis of the under 5s on care orders).
If we consider the figures for under 5s we have 13,830 children under 5 in care as at 31st March and 4,280 children being adopted.
Expressing the proportion as a percentage (which is is not because of different dimensions in numerator and denominator) it is 31%. That, of course, is a lot more than the government's oft quoted 7% figure.
It is always going to be rare to get an adoptive family for a child over 10 (60 adoptions, 41,410 children looked after). It is going to be unusual for children between 5 and 10. (990 adoptions, 14,310 children looked after).
This is part of the government's confusion about adoption and potential adoption numbers.
The source information is here
In terms of children coming into care 19,300 came into care on S20 (C1). 15,410 left care whilst on S20 in the same year (D1). Obviously some could have gone onto care orders again the government statistics don't really explain this properly. The under 5 year old stats that I have prepared deal with this issue properly.
Whatever way you want to put it, however, the system for the younger children has as its priority getting children adopted. The annual numbers could only be quadrupled (as suggested by Martin Narey) by either taking a lot more younger children into care or getting lots of teenagers adopted.
In terms of starting to be looked after there were 5,810 babies and 5,870 infants (C1).
posted by John Hemming
¶ 10:50 am0 comments
Friday, October 30, 2015
Snoopers Charter: It cannot work
In The Telegraph today it is reported that the government are going to try to legislate to collect internet Metadata again.
This cropped up I think two years ago and there were a number of meetings in the Commons about it. I pointed out the technical problems. The basic technical problem is that encryption is designed to prevent what is called a "man in the middle" attack. Encryption operates from client to server and no-one in the middle is supposed to find out anything about the communication. Hence if people are using proxy servers outside the UK Jurisdiction it becomes impossible to garner any useful information from this beyond which proxy server is being used.
It was reported that some in the security services did not want a generalised recording of metadata as this would result in more people using encryption, not just those who knew they were breaking the law. I thought these simple facts had kicked this proposal into touch, but clearly not.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 8:41 am0 comments
Thursday, October 22, 2015
In the matter of: CB (A child)
Unusually the Supreme Court in refusing permission to appeal of the above case has given reasons. I am assuming that is because the Latvian government supported the mother in the appeal and it is really high profile in Latvia (including being the subject of a debate today in the Latvian Parliament).
There have been a number of public judgments and the refusal of permission by the Supreme Court is a public document.
Here is the case when last in the Court of Appeal. This was an appeal from this High Court case.
The case started off with two incidents. The first was when the mother was stopped by the police crossing the road whilst walking home in the early hours of the morning. She had taken her shoes off because they were causing her pain and placed them on the buggy in which she was pushing her younger daughter. She had been drinking with a friend that evening. Her younger daughter was returned home to be looked after by her elder daughter.
The second incident was more serious. Her younger daughter was found home alone with a full nappy. The mother argues that she arranged for a babysitter to look after her daughter. This, however, does not appear in any of the judgments although it does appear in some of the expert reports. However, in my view, the best source of information is the police reports from police notes. Those notes were taken at the time. I have extracted some of the parts of the police reports and removed all the names (including the names of the police officers) and that is available here:
It should be noted from the police reports that they arrived at 18.50, then someone who said they were the babysitter arrived and then at 19.08 they took the child to hospital because she was cold. At that point they had not spoken to the mother. Hence it is quite clear that the mother had arranged prior to the police's arrival for a baby sitter to attend. This, of course, substantiates the mother's argument that she had arranged for a babysitter. She accepts and I agree that she should not have left home before the babysitter had arrived. It should also be noted from the police reports that the child's 18 year old sister arrived at 20.10. The High Court judgment makes no reference to anyone claiming to be a babysitter being involved in the matter.
It remains an interesting question as to what would have happened had the babysitter turned up before the police. One would expect her to have changed the child's nappy and for nothing further to have happened.
The case then moved on collecting opinion from the local authority. It is worth noting that the police decided not to prosecute the mother, but instead to caution her. It is also worth noting that the original view of the local authority (Merton) was to reunite mother and daughter (and sister).
However, Merton then decided to increase their adoption target. They also decided not to reunite the family. Expert evidence was obtained from two experts one of whom proposed adoption and the other of whom suggested the family should be reunited.
This is where the question about bias on the local authority becomes important. The Supreme Court argues that an independent judge automatically overcomes bias in evidence. That, however, is obviously not the case. From time to time a judge can decide to ignore biased evidence, but the judge is supposed to follow the evidence. Hence the fact that Merton is subject to a bias towards adoption is a key issue.
There are lots of other technical legal issues about international adoption law and conventions. The local authority failed for years to contact Latvia about the case. The nub of the issue, however, is that because the mother left home before her babysitter arrived her daughter has been put up for adoption.
The Supreme Court: posted by John Hemming
¶ 1:57 pm1 comments
Monday, October 05, 2015
Statistical First Release - Children in care 2014/15
The SFR has been published recently. In many ways it exhibits the same trends.
Of the 69,540 children looked after 41,410 are 10 and over. Only 28,140 are under 10. 19,850 are in looked after voluntarily (S20) and the rest in some form of compulsory care. 5,330 were adopted from care. 4,280 were under 5. The number of children in care under 5 is 13,820. Hence if you look at the proportion of children adopted from care as the ratio of the number under 5 compared to the number adopted the figure (expressed as a percentage) is 30.6 (it is not a proper percentage because of the failure of dimensional analysis).
There is a jump in the number of East Europeans looked after with "white other" going up from 2210 to 2550 and Gypsy/Roma going from 220 to 250.
I expect to get my analyses that look in more detail at what is happening with children under 5 later this year or early next year, but the system is clearly still going wrong in a big way.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 1:20 pm0 comments
Friday, September 25, 2015
Glee Club Bournemouth September 2015
This week's glee club was particularly good. I copy below a photo of the event:
Thanks to Jonathan Wallace for the Photo.
There are a number of short videos on twitter.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 5:30 pm0 comments
Dub Side of the Moon
One of my favourite albums of the 70s was Dark Side of the Moon. This is an interesting alternative version in a Reggae style.
Mainly I prefer the original, but This version of Time (I have linked to the start) is interesting.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 8:06 pm0 comments
Sunday, September 06, 2015
Parents Want a Say - Resignation of Karen Wilkinson and John Hemming
Karen Wilkinson and I have today resigned from PWAS (Parents Want a Say). The group has achieved some notable successes in the campaign to reverse the term time holiday regulations but it is clear there are irreconcilable differences over governance and organisational development. We believe the issue of unreasonable treatment of parents by schools in terms of absence as a result of government pressure remains important and we will be creating a new campaigning organisation to continue the campaign in this area.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 12:23 pm0 comments
Thursday, September 03, 2015
Martin Narey and Adoption Statistics
I have recently had a look at This post which references Martin Narey's speech about adoption numbers earlier this year. In that speech he said:
I don’t think adoption can ever be suitable for other than a minority of children in care. But I think that minority is probably more than 5,000 or just 7% of the care population”
This goes to the nub of the statistical misunderstanding that has gone on for over a decade. The number of children in care is a static number. The number adopted per year is a number of children per year. You cannot sensibly compare one to the other. Because children stay in care for multiple years you need to look at the numbers of children going into care (per year).
I take the view that you need actually to ignore the children placed in care under S20 and also to concentrate on those for whom adoption is a likely option (the younger ones). The sad thing is that this innumeracy lies behind the drive to increase adoption numbers to stupid levels.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 6:04 am0 comments
Wednesday, September 02, 2015
Coventry is not part of the West Midlands Conurbation
It was interesting to read today the proposals from Warwickshire County Council that the city region combined authority for Coventry should be one for Warwickshire as well.
Frankly this is a bit of a no brainer. Warwickshire curls around Coventry and is clearly in the economic city region. It is only people who reside in the Whitehall that believe that Coventry is best placed with Greater Birmingham.
City Regions work as units of devolution if they have essentially economic city regions of a city and its travel to work area. Hence Lichfield, Bromsgrove, Kidderminster, Tamworth and Redditch fit comfortably into the wider Greater Birmingham area, but Coventry does not.
It always caused tensions in the past and will continue to undermine the common interest of a Greater Birmingham City Region if it is continued.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 6:21 pm0 comments
I have written this blog post to answer the questions and reconcile the statistics. All figures are figures for the English jurisdiction. Most (if not all) are based upon the SSDA903 return. The SSDA903 return is an annual electronic return from Children's Services Authorities to the Department for Education. It includes details of each change of legal status and each change of placement status for children in care. I have had additional analyses done by the DfE statisticians - which is what the source of the spreadsheets that I have uploaded is.
The most widely known analysis from the SSDA903 return is the Statistical First Release. This is normally issued in the September after the end of the Financial Year that it is relevant to. Hence the 2014 SFR can be found in a PDF form here, but the 2015 release has not yet been published. I use the excel format files as they are easier to produce analyses from.
I shall put in italics what appear to be questions or other elements from Lucy's blog post and then answer them (or respond as appropriate).
But what other reasons were there for children leaving care?
More than a third (34% or 10,300) of those 30 thousand or so children ceased to be looked after because they had gone home to parents or relatives.
The first point to make is to distinguish between "care" - what for precision I call "compulsory care" and "looked after children".
Looked after children include all the children looked after by the local authority whether they are in care compulsorily as a result of a placement order, police protection, interim care order, EPO, care order or other compulsion or (additionally) those who are in for a form of respite care.
Table A2 in the SFR gives the following summary figures for 31st March 2014.
Care orders, 39,930, freed for adoption 60, placement orders, 9,260, Section 20, 19,230, detained for child protection 50, youth justice 300.
The S20 category is complex and there are abuses of S20, but this cohort of children is substantially different to those who are compulsorily in care. Hence when I ask the DfE to analses compulsory care I ask them to exclude these children. From a court perspective S20 does not involve the court.
To summarise, 8% of children were adopted non-consensually, whilst 1/3 went home or to family, 9% were adopted without opposition, and 17% were made the subject of SGOs or residence orders.
This, of course, is conflating children who are voluntarily put into care by their parents and then taken from care and the compulsory care system involving public family law. We know that the number of care orders and the like each year is around 11,500. Hence from the table (C1) of children who start being "looked after" where for 2014 there are 30,340 we can estimate that the total number coming into the care system as "looked after children" on S20 was around 19,000.
The number starting to be looked after in any one year will not match the number ceasing being looked after. However, whatever way one wishes to consider this the S20 cohort should be looked at separately to those in compulsory care. Particularly if one wishes to consider the operations of the courts one could not mix up the statistics by including children who are not subject to court proceedings of any form.
Only 16% of under fives reunited with parents?
John Hemming goes on to say that the proportion of under fives reunited with parents is only 1,300 of 8,200 (16%). For comparison, the percentage for return to parents across all ages is 34%, so if right this would be disproportionately low. Again, we cannot see how Mr Hemming’s analyst has extracted those figures, and will ask for clarification. We cannot presently verify this assertion.
The info comes from DfE. If you ask them for a copy of the stats they send to me then you can confirm this.
Decisions are not made on the basis of quotas
Let me put it this way. There are quotas. Increases in the quotas cause changes in the numbers of children adopted. How does this happen if decisions are not influenced by quotas.
SSDA903 is a return to DfE from Childrens Services Authorities and is stored in a database. Hence it is no in itself published although various extracts of data are published. I can forward the email I got from DfE to Lucy Reed or Sarah Phillimore if they wish to try to argue that the stats are not provided by the departmental statisticians.
Lucy makes a valid point that some sets of proceedings commence with S20 placement with the local authority. My "compulsory care" statistics pick up those that then change to an ICO or Care Order. It is true that in a small number of cases the application does not result in an ICO or Care Order. From memory it is around 3% of applications (according to MoJ statistics) that do not result in an ICO or Care Order. It remains that an ICO is granted on "reasonable grounds" rather than proof and hence the analysis I have had requested is valid without those additional 3% of cases.
There are questions about the abuse of S20. However, any useful analysis of the care system has to distinguish between child protection and other cases. I don't think you can sensibly lump all the cases where the LA looks after the child and treat them as being the same.
Quotas - I gave a link to the figures for Merton with all the details about their targets. Quotas do have an affect on managerial priorities. What is the sense of setting targets if you don't intend hitting them. Having a target is materially different to counting something. Senior management in the LA tell the junior management to hit the targets.
"John Hemming’s figures suggest that a very high 78% of children over 5 who left care through adoption were adopted unopposed compared with an overall figure of 9%." - I personally am not claiming this.
Cases and Children. One application for a care order can affect more than one child. Hence you will get different figures. SSDA903 is child based and I have had agreement from Cafcass to work on stats to see what agreement we can get between their analyses and those of the department.
It remains that the outcome of adoption from care without parental consent is commonplace rather than exceptional. There is, in fact, no real threshold distinction between dispensing with parental consent and simmply adopting from care. That is not in accordance with international law. We can argue about the 3% of cases which start with S20, but do not end with a care order of any kind, ubt that does not make a substantial different to the point that the system as a whole is unlawful.
3/9/15 - I have also uploaded some stats from 2011 (I have not found more recent ones) which look at disposals in public family law by outcome and numbers of children. here these demonstrate that there are only a small number of S20 children actually subject to care proceedings which don't end up in a care order.
3/9/15 - Further comments.
The reason I have put up the court stats is because of the argument by Lucy R that I am missing out a large number of children on S20 who are represented in care proceedings. My view is that there are likely to be a small number of children, possibly around 100, but that this does not have a significant effect on the argument about the figures. Notwithstanding this issue furthermore the legality of outcome targets for those providing expert opinion remains permanently in question. (and the issue of repeat player prejudice and Experts on retainers).
My point is that a very high proportion of applications for care orders result in a care order. Hence even if there is no ICO at an early stage, the children concerned will be picked up in my figures when the care order is Granted.
The SSDA903 return operates on a financial year so that the 2011 figures are 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011. The court stats are on a calendar year basis so actually the 2011 court figures are more like the 2012 SSDA903 figures.
Looking at applications for a care order. There were 10,844 orders made, 4 orders refused, 260 orders of no order and 263 applications withdrawn. That is 95.38%. Hence under 5% of cases might not be trapped in my figures.
Secure accommodation is irrelevant to this issue and obviously if a care order is discharged then there was a care order. Supervision orders are not relevant as obviously the children are being supervised with their parents. They do not go in care. If those become care orders then they appear under the care order figures. Contact, refuse contact authority, education supervision and Child Assessment orders are not relevant to the issue.
An EPO is of course relevant. Because they are short term, however, and normally result in an ICO I don't think it is worth separately considering them. If proceedings continue on after this they will be trapped in the care order stats.
Recovery orders are not relevant nor the parental responsibility, S8, residence, contact, prohibited steps or specific issue orders.
An SGO will follow care proceedings and is, hence in those statistics.
My argument is that it is care proceedings that we should be concerned with and although there may be a small number of cases of care proceedings where the threat of an ICO is used to keep a child in care under S20, the number is easily under 5%. My experience of cases, however, is that I don't see cases happening where S20 goes directly to SGO. Those would be an inappropriate use of S20 anyway as it is not voluntary where there are care proceedings.
I would accept the argument that it would be better to have a more exhaustive analysis of the nature of the looked after children population. However, there remain limits as to what I can get DfE to do. They should really do more work on this themselves.
Old Birmingham Constituency Boundaries
When I did my maiden speech in 2005 I had some research from the House of Commons Library about the Yardley Constituency. There has, in fact, been a constituency of Birmingham, Yardley since 1918. I think I have uploaded the maps prior to Yardley joining Birmingham (1911). From the 1832 Reform Act Yardley was part of East Worcester constituency until I think 1885.
I have scanned and uploaded all the maps I had from the House of Commons Library and link to one of the documents on this page. If I have a lot of time I might organise them in a structure. Flickr allows paging through Images, however. Hence if you want to see what is available click right and left posted by John Hemming
¶ 1:06 pm0 comments
Thursday, August 06, 2015
The Historic Counties of Birmingham
The Ordnance Survey have uploaded here maps of the historic counties of the UK. These varied over time, but I have extracted the boundaries for Birmingham so show where the old counties used to end.
What I found interesting was that Stoney Lane through to Walford Road were the boundary between Worcestershire and Warwickshire making the junction of the Stratford Road and Warwick Road fully in Worcestershire. Thanks be to the OS.
I am not sure of the date and I thought that Harborne was at one stage in Staffordshire. Having glanced at Wikipedia it appears that Harborne moved into Warwickshire in 1891.
This demonstrates the relationship between historic counties and current ceremonial counties in the North of England. posted by John Hemming
¶ 5:47 pm0 comments
Saturday, August 01, 2015
Interesting Bus Photos
These photos are from my archives and I found them when getting rid of some old floppy discs. They were taken in the late 1990s. I thought they were an interesting historical record, however, so have uploaded them to flickr.
I asked a question of the Prime Minister (when it was Gordon Brown) about bus regulation. I think the Greater Manchester Combined Authority is getting the powers to do this. I hope we make similar progress in the West Midlands. I don't think such dangerous driving is commonplace today, but would be interested to hear of any examples. I remember getting some media attention for the issue in the 1990s when these photos were taken, but beyond the GM combinened authority I am not sure any progress has been made on the underlying issue (Which is about sector tendering).
posted by John Hemming
¶ 10:51 am0 comments
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Birmingham UNA - The Magna Carta and the British Constitution
I spoke yesterday at a meeting of the Birmingham UNA about The Magna Carta and the British Constitution. We attempted a livestreaming of this, the bandwidth was too low. Hence I have uploaded the recordings. There were two short recordings of 1 and 4 seconds that I have removed, but there are two recordings of a quarter of a minute and then a recording of 1 hour 17 minutes. These are here:
I have since updated this by trying to improve the sound and putting the three videos together. That is why the start is a bit disjointed.
posted by John Hemming
¶ 8:58 am0 comments
Monday, July 13, 2015
John Hemming and the Jazz Lobbyists at The Birmingham Jazz Festival 8th July 2015
Published, promoted, and printed (well not really printed I suppose, more like typed) by John Hemming, 1772 Coventry Road, Birmingham B26 1PB. Hosted by blogspot.com part of Google.com 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043, United States of America.
This blog is posted by John Hemming in his personal capacity as an individual.
If you want me to respond to any comment please either comment only on the past few entries or put something in your comment to make it clear what you are commenting on (the URL would help). Otherwise I will not be able to find the comment quickly and will not respond.