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.

Comments

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 Hemming said…
Social Services (now Childrens Services) generally don't help. They start care proceedings instead.
Unknown 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.
Cindy 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

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…