Skip to main content

Family Court Stories

There is some interest in the media (link to Observer story) about the Family Courts.

I am particularly interested in the aspects relating to Public Law (which is where Social Services come in).

The argument is put forward that the secrecy is there to protect the children.

Why, then, when it has been proven that everything claimed to justify a child being taken into care is false and the case was dismissed with the costs awarded against a local authority does the case remain secret?

There are situations where children (that are over 12 ie Gillick competent) and parents want to talk to the media about what has been done to them by Social Services Departments, but they are not allowed to.

What is so very wrong that a child is not allowed to talk about the way that child was treated by the system?

The problem with much of Labour's legislation is it assumes that people who have authority will not abuse that authority.

Exactly how many cases involve an abuse of authority is not clear. The MPs group dealing with Munchausen's by Proxy (now renamed FII) is trying to find out.

The system (in this case the DFES) collects statistics in a way that makes it impossible to know the answer.

The problem with the system is that there is a need for a system to deal with situations where children are being maltreated by their parents.

There are, however, hundreds and probably thousands and maybe tens of thousands of cases where the system instead is maltreating both children and parents.


Relating to this article on the Family courts, it is hard to comprehend that any reform is going to change the way the social services and associating agencies perform. As they all gather their information together before hand and present it in court only to influence the judges decision. What hope does a parent have with all agencies united in one big fast! One area to consider when reforming.
Also that the party, usually the innocent person in these proceedings has the right to speak freely in court as in many courts a mother or a father has to sit and instruct a solicitor who unbelievably will ignore their request to speak out...Usually these instructions can only be approached on the spot due to lies and coruption noticed while actually in the court proceedings, if these are allowed to be brought up at the time, then the court will be made fully aware and can exercise their views in public. This is only fair to the children as many a times injustices do not get back into the court room as the solicitor or judge does not see it necassary.
What we all have to bear in mind is, these so called professionals have not lived with the partners of these innocent people and it the innocent that know best when it comes to the other person lying. These lies can scar and result in a life time of destruction for families torn apart when the social services and agencies choose to support the abusive parent.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Service launched to reduce the pain of calling a call centre.

Click here to try the beta test call entre phoning service"John Hemming, who has created an internet Startup called Cirrostratus since he ceased being an MP, is launching a free online service to make life easier for people phoning call centres.   The service is provided by Cirrostratus, but the SIP backbone is provided by the multi-award winning business VoIP solution, Soho66." John said, "Many people find phoning call centres a real pain.  Our service is aiming to make things a lot easier.   One click on alink or the bookmarks list and our server will phone up the call centre and get through all the menus.  This is a lot faster than when people have to phone up and is less irritating." "Additionally the system uses WebRtc and the internet to make the call. This means that people don't find their normal phone system being blocked whilst they hang on the line waiting to speak to a human being." Marketing Manager from Soho66, David McManus, said: &q…