Saturday, May 26, 2007
The rank hypocrisy of family court judges
The title is one of Camilla Cavendish whose article is linked, but it is a sentiment I share.
The secrecy in the family courts does not protect the children it protects the system and those who operate it.
I have written a response to Munby's published judgment (the publishing of which we need to thank him for), but it may be published elsewhere first.
Although I don't agree with the judgment it is good that it is published and we must thank him for this. If other judges published their judgments this would be a step forward (and perhaps they would recognise that their judgments are not generally supported). posted by John Hemming ¶ 12:28 pm
The secrecy in the family courts does not protect the children it protects the system and those who operate it.
I have written a response to Munby's published judgment (the publishing of which we need to thank him for), but it may be published elsewhere first.
Although I don't agree with the judgment it is good that it is published and we must thank him for this. If other judges published their judgments this would be a step forward (and perhaps they would recognise that their judgments are not generally supported). posted by John Hemming ¶ 12:28 pm
Comments:
<< Home
Could the father take a lie detector test, then he can change the future outcomes in the courts, because if he voluntarly summited to a test the court has to balance this with the information it has and then take it into account in any future proceedings, would save all these arguements on paper and fidling about the bush in courts if he was to prove his innocence this way and then have the safe return of his daughter ensured.
After all what are the lie detector tests there for if they are not going to be used to help a case or person in the first place.
Post a Comment
After all what are the lie detector tests there for if they are not going to be used to help a case or person in the first place.
<< Home
