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.

Comments

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.
http://social-services-disrupt-family-life.blogspot.com/

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…