Skip to main content

Privacy for the Child

This photograph of five children appeared on the front of the Sunday Mercury in Birmingham on Sunday.

Those who defend secrecy in the Family Courts claim it is there to protect the identity of the child. Why then are they pictured on the front page of a newspaper.

The same people who say nothing should be mentioned about the proceedings then claim: "The youngsters, including 14-month-old twins, were taken into care because of worries they were being neglected. "

The article is linked.

Why cannot the other side of the story be told. I recently visited a local charity that supports families with children under 5. I was told that possibly 50% of the problems relate to housing conditions. So we have the funds to pay lawyers and experts hundreds of thousands of pounds to split families up, we have the funds to pay private agencies thousands of pounds to look after the children, we have the funds to pay adoption agencies and the adopting family, but we don't have money to keep the family together in the first instance.

There are many many rubbishy cases in the Family Court that don't stand up for a second. However, there is too much money made by splitting up families so the system continues to do that unnecessarily. We may never now the full story about this family in Coventry. What is clear, however, is that the secrecy in the family courts is all about protecting the system and not about protecting the children.


tfc said…
I was told that the council now consider a family with 4 members and 2 children under 5 to be adequately housed in a 1 bed flat. They say the children can sleep with the parents!!

This person told me that the toddler had no room to toddle and this must be extremely damaging emotionally and physically for the children plus stressful.

It is not fair that families be split when the state dictates that this cramped living is acceptable.

There are so many people coming into this country and there is a crisis in social housing with long waiting lists. The government is not building the housing required for the population explosion happening all over the country.

I doubt social services will help these families.
john said…
Social Services (now Childrens Services) generally don't help. They start care proceedings instead.
Amanda said…
When Social wreckers stole my children in June 2003, they told the court an array of lies. One concerned me not moving away. I later got a new tenancy out of the area and when I told them I had a new home they got the offer taken off me. This was a calculated move designed to keep me in a postition to adopt my children.
watchdog said…
This is a political issue. There is a housing shortage. The government have recently put up for consultation the Regional Spacial Strategy that identifies we need 1/3rd more housing than at present. People are living longer, children are not able to afford to start families and live in one bed flats in thier late twenties, then 49% of marriages split leaving 2 families instead of one. We are bringing in more european labour because there are the jobs for them. They go into private rented.

The loss of open space and countryside and general increases in density and stress will be sacrificed for the increase in units needed. As well as the use of energy resources to support this growth.

The old solution was tolerance and self control and sacrific by the adult. This was supported by government policies ie tax consessions for the married and social disapproval of divorce and single parenthood, elderly parents living with their children. In addition children where allowed to play outside without the threat of suprious child abuse and asbos and smacking and community intervention with poorly behaved children was acceptable.

We now abdicate respnsibility to the authorities and are frighted to be accountable and so you get what you vote for and support.

ps i grew up in a one bed flat with two stable parents and slept in the living room on a bed settee.

So take your choice.
cindmo said…
It's not the gov. job to provide housing for people who give birth to and keep children they can't afford.

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…