Skip to main content

Conflicts of Interest in the Family Division

One interesting aspect of Family Law is the role of the Guardian Ad Litem. In theory this is someone who is appointed to represent the interests of the child.

The problem is that although the individual concerned works for CAFCASS the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service actually they are in fact another arm of the state.

Furthermore firms of solicitors who act for parents on legal aid may also act for the state. We, therefore, have a substantial conflict of interest with the legal advisors also working for the state.

The Chair of the CAFCASS board is a working Labour Peer and the Chief Executive is someone who previously was a director of Social Services in Havering.

There are those who honestly believe that being in the care of the local authority is a good thing for children. The evidence is that this is not the case. It does strike me as a conflict of interest and indeed an offence against the principle of "equality of arms" to have CAFCASS representing the interests of children.

The real test, of course, is one as to to what extent the Guardian Ad Litem tries to keep children away from care when social services are arguing for a child to be taken into care.

Comments

Guardian Ad Litem's work in the same way as social workers do they collect data that is disproven, lies, make believes,oppinions,rumours, all to paint pictures of their victims the way they want to paint it to the judge, so it all works in favour of the social worker who has influenced them with their views and what they think best.
They pounce on innocent people, and make victims of victims. I am living proof of that fact, with documentry evidence of that fact too.


I am a Mother who once had 5 children, My daughter was sexually abused by her step father, and he threaten her not to tell anyone,but i found out and when i did he did his up most to influence the ss I was a lyer and them lies stuck.He made my integrity in doubt,he stole my babies as added threats to her not to tell anyone, He used them as smoke screens to save his own back side out of prison for what he did to her and me. The guardian ad litem, felt it did not impair his ability to father my two young children!!,She supported him in a magistrates court to get a residence order!.(I learnt that day too; much to my shock he had also got a caution already for underage sex (no one told me!) and a criminal record for thieving!he also has never stopped this life style since!.) Yet he was the criminal, with failures in that part too by the police, and we were the innocent parties...We have had a nightmare of this for over 17 years now,with the children in his care disclosing their abuse and ss failing to protect them,worming their way out of it all the time so all the rest does not surface about their failures to protect my two children he stole in the first instance.. as the whole system is so corrupt, it all boils down to money money money and not peoples lives and well being.

How can a guardian ad litem sleep at night knowing they turn the cases round to the innocent and let the guilty rule them!!.Their lies influence judges and MUD Sticks.
Yet i have brought up 5 other children and all are doing well, no question of my parenting to do with them, grandchildren are well too!
The social worker based HER conculsion on presumption, yes presumption that it is a herculies task for any mother to bring up 5 children on her own!!....These words and the words of the guardian ad litem influenced the 3 magistrates a child sex abuser was capable of fathering my two babies!!..

Yet my children were born over 3 decades!!..
so age difference was that i had many years of parenting before they got involved when my daughter had been sexually abused by the younger CHILDRENS' father!.

But they wanted it kept quiet that the Doctor who knew a year before i found out from my daughter, had already told his health visitor that he had suspissions my daughter was being sexually abused, gleened from a visit we payed to them of a problem she had, yet this health visitor did not tell me, oh know, she never told me til A YEAR later after i found out and it was only guilt that exposed her quietness to me then. by doing this she subjected my child to more incidences with this man of which if i had been told at the time, would have been clear out of my house for good!!..
Not one of these pair turned up in court at all to support me, because they were too worried abouT their own jobs!!....so they let my two children suffer for the rest of their lives because of their selfishness!.

No one should be subjected to their rapist or abuser for the rest of their lives, and this is clearly what social services and guardian ad litems have done to us!.
RUBBED OUR FACES IN IT DAY IN AND DAY OUT!

I DID NOT BRING CHILDREN INTO THIS WORLD TO BE TREATED THIS WAY, I BROUGHT THEM IN TO LOVE AND NURTURE AND TO RAISE UP.

I now too am going to speak out more, why the heck should we keep silent, the ss think they are the law when all they are doing is praying for our silence!!.

Well know more, enough is enough and this system has not learnt lessons YET. I was told that many years ago and it still is being repeated and repeated!.


What is always misunderstood is that people should realise they can not sue people who are exposing the truth about them, so everyone that feels they can, get wise and speak out and show this system for what it has done to its fellow citazins.

so lets too think about the system as faulty right through to the core...Is this what we want for british people, no wonder people emmigrate they are ashamed of britain.

For each generation that comes after me will learn what happen to us and this will be past on and on, so best this country wakes up as I am not the only one with injustices to pass down the line. IS THIS HOW THE GOV. WANTS ITS COUNTRY TO LOOK!...
Anonymous said…
You need to visit www.f4j.us and do not be afraid fo the name Fathers 4 Justice. 40% of it's members are women. They fight for equality in Family Law. We have to get the laws changed from "what is in the best interest fo a child" which is too subjective to outside influences to a standard 50/50 defualt in every state. Only then will it be fair to mothers, fathers and especially children. If, there is sexual abuse or any kind of abuse, then, when there is strong eveidence to support it, then Sole Custody should be used.

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

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…