Skip to main content

The "Appalling Vista" of the injustices of the Family Courts

The "appalling vista" of the Family Courts, in comparison to Lord Denning's statements in respect of the Birmingham Six, is that totally innocent families where no-one has done anything wrong are torn apart by a system that is dominated by interests other than the public interest.

It is said that the standard of proof in the family courts is "on the balance of probabilities". Actually in many cases parents need to prove their innocence.

There are symptoms such as CMLs and SBS where a proportion of the parents are entirely innocent. However, the system still works to remove their children (and any future babies) into care. Pleading innocence actually works against the parents as they are deemed to be "in denial". The fact that the system punishes honesty is another of its more malign aspects.

Mothers are actually treated like slaves of the state whose children are owned by the state (the state holds parental responsibility) and are allocated to other "more deserving" families by the state. Particularly mothers who have been in care themselves are treated as the state's slaves. They are imprisoned in hospital when they go to give birth and their babies removed by secret courts whilst they are still recovering from the process of giving birth.

It will be interesting to see how the courts respond to an Article 4 challenge on this point.

Comments

ESCAPE said…
Truth at last, If the public knew just how the system worked and was used they would be in shock. we are talking about a calm situation in a hospital where 2 parents are cooing over thier baby, when nurses, police and Social workers walk in and try and remove a baby from the parents, NO COURT ORDER, if they refuse to hand over the child they are then threatened with arrest if they try to leave with the baby, so the then terrified parents sign a piece of scribbled paper to say they agree no to leave the hospital untill a court date is set.
I want to know why the press will be done for reporting on such human crime, how has it come to this when every child in care is screaming about the abuse they are suffering, parents more than capeable of giving the children a happy life are still not even allowed to see there unhappy kids in care.

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…