I just wanted to commend you on your courage on speaking out about the corruption and injustices within this system.

Our family is currently a victim of the earliest stages of this system, the child protection process. Although we do have good people around us who support us at every level, the system is set up in such a way that you are powerless to defend yourselves and your children from the incompetence and negligence of the whole system and the professionals who operate within it.

We feel abused, let down, frightened and persecuted and have lost all faith in justice and the British Legal System. Despite this we fight on for the sake of the children.

I hope that you have success in highlighting the corruption of this system and bringing it into the political arena so that radical, legislative changes can be made as quickly as possible.
 

Dear John
Perjury, falsification of evidence, fraud, lies, deceit, false arrest, abuse of human rights against parent and child, collusion by guardians solicitors and in one case 54 factual errors in a report (not differences of opinion). CAFCASS state that this matter is too serious for their complaints procedure and it has to be referred back to the Courts for directions.

Fifty court hearings on and still the Courts allow the legal industry to play their money games.

CAFCASS instruct the Solicitors, the Solicitors recieve Legal Aid. The judges who were once solicitors themselves who, prior the their 'promotion' were also in reciept of hundreds of thousands of pounds in fees.

It does not take a genius to realise that with 11,000 family solicitors in the UK, there must be some serious money to be had, in excess of £4bn to be a little more accurate.

Therefore, consider this, commit a crime and you get legal aid. The UK parades human rights issues and says that it is our right to be represented.

Get divorced and unless you can pay, you'll lose everything, starting with your children.

It will take a few people with some real guts and creativity to expose this miscarriage of justice that appears to be ingrained in our society expressly for the benefit of the legal profession who present themselves as being oh, so clever whilst they steral from everyone they come in to contact with.

There have been so many jokes about solicitors being sharks etc., etc, however, once we start putting this in to perspective for the common man and help everyone realise that it is our establishment that is destroying the fabric of our society, whilst the likes of Ian Ducan Smith is applauded for his research in to Social Justice. He's barking up the wrong tree and his recommendations will not work. Is he trying to con everyone like our legal profession do or has he simply not completed his research yet, who knows.

The fact remains. When families who have been destroyed by the establishment put two and two together and realise that they were set up by both firms of solicitors and the Judges pontificated over decisions at the repective hearings only to maintain the status quo of the legal profession earning out of families, then there will be a major problem.

A sure fire way of election is to show the common man your commitment to the truth and expose this shoking truth.

A family does not need a solicitor or legal aid. Take away the financial gain for everyone and make 50:50 shared care and division of assets the norm and all will change.

But for now, the legal industry earn so much, only the strong can affect a change.

Good Luck John, I'll do my bit and I hope you are allowed to do your too. It will not surprise me if our plans are scuppered though!

You use your position as an MP and I'll use 'www.GetFamilyFit.co.uk'.
 

I agrre with much of what you say John BUT it is NOT all one sided.
Many if not most of the kids who end up in care have to be rescued from the most appalling abusive families.
You appear to be becoming a ONE Issue MP?
Careful, it is looking a bit obsessive!!
 

Of course it is not one sided. We need a system to protect children from abusive parents. This one doesn't work properly and is to some extent counterproductive. The figures are on my website.

In other words the England and Wales position in terms of preventing child deaths from abuse is worse as a consequence in part from the totality of the system we operate.

I am spending quite a bit of time on this issue at the moment because my objective is to get things changed so we have a better system.

I did spend a lot of time on issues such as Silent Calls until such a stage as some change was achieved. This is a more important issue, but I will give it attention until we have improved the situation.
 

The comment Fran gave that most children who end up in care come from appalling abusive families.I wish people would research the issue before making such ignorant unsubstantiated comments.
Half of the families in care proceedings have not abused their children.65% of children in care are voluntary.

I asked for a bit of respite and within 3 weeks of involvement with social services I was in court going through hell.Perjurous court statements from social workers who did not even know me.Never listened to me apart from mock me.After going though an absolute hell in court thinking that everyone would believe the social workers, I got a letter from the LA solicitor saying my parenting was of a high standard!!

I assist families now and I am horrifed by the amount of caring parents who are being bullied and abused by social workers.

Many social workers are wrecking families because they have a learning disability,mental health problem,are a single parent.It doesn't matter how minor the problem.Many Social workers are still as prejudiced as they were in the 70's.

Keep up the good work John-the families need someone to speak up for us. We can't get heard otherwise as we are all gagged by this lunatic system.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I think its a bit deceitful Fran Oborski that you did not mention that you are a county councillor for another party.

As a councillor yourself perhaps you should not reduce to name calling. Thank God there is an MP who is willing to speak out about the abuses that some of your constituents have to go through in this hidden system.
 

In 2001 I raised these matters in two petitions

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/petitions/or-01/pu01-0602.htm#Col1042

The Convener: First, we have a batch of petitions, PE352 and PE355, which are both from Mr Duncan Shields. Mr Shields is present this morning and I invite him to make a presentation to the committee.

It is normal practice to allow petitioners three minutes to make their presentation. However, because you are speaking to two petitions, it has been agreed that you will be allowed five minutes. After four and a half minutes, I shall indicate that you have 30 seconds to go; you should then begin to wind up.

Mr Duncan Shields: The Shipman inquiry is only the tip of the iceberg in showing the almost total lack of regulation of doctors' conduct. Doctors make mistakes and errors of judgment and have been shown to act subversively if there is financial gain to be made. Lawyers exploit that lack of accountability by using doctors' reports regularly in the Scottish courts to bias cases heavily in favour of their clients. That can massively undermine the basic human rights of many individuals who bear the brunt of the injustice that flows from a system that is seriously flawed and which causes widespread psychological trauma for children and parents who are separated from one another as a result of that lack of accountability. Because of the pressures that result from such actions, some people may not even survive the loss of the basic human right of contact with their family.

Could anyone possibly believe that, in his capacity as a doctor, Harold Shipman was capable of passing accurate judgment on parenting skills or a child's welfare? However, he was only one of many doctors who use their surgeries as mini-courtrooms, producing character assessments outwith a court of law and remaining virtually untouchable, while the GMC has nothing in place to ensure impartiality, as required by the European Court of Human Rights. There is an inherent bias in such cases when a lawyer requests a doctor's report for the client. Such a request is unlikely to produce a report opposing that lawyer's client, who is providing the fee for that report via the legal aid fund.

There is now a total lack of trust by the general public in a system that gives free rein to professionals—as if that title is all that is required to assure good moral and ethical judgment. The Shipman inquiry showed that the system is seriously flawed in coming to that conclusion. For an individual to face such injustice while emotionally weakened by separation and other serious contributing factors, such as illness, and while there is no accountability, leaves the legal process open to widespread misuse. The system allows unwarranted restrictions to be placed on family contact and uses potentially flawed reports to the detriment of a child's emotional development. Family Mediation Scotland is fully aware of the damage that is regularly done to children's development as a result of those unaccountable influences.

The process, which is blighted by a lack of grievance procedures and disciplinary action, may later be shown to be flawed and to have undermined decisions regarding a child's welfare. In many cases, those decisions are taken by professionals who may have little or no knowledge of a family background on which to form their opinions and who influence such cases heavily from the outset. That also leads to the degrading spectacle of judges and sheriffs treating individuals inhumanely in court, by withdrawing or severely limiting contact with a child. In many cases, that judgment is based on statements that have been produced by a doctor who is unaccountable. Those statements may totally contradict the views that have been expressed by the children involved, which shows lack of sensitivity to a highly emotive issue. The introduction of children's commissioners may assist in the process, by ensuring that the rights of the children are being taken into account.

A doctor, funded by legal aid, can slander an individual in court, but no legal aid is available for the individual to challenge any such report. Nor is there any grievance procedure to deal with that through the General Medical Council, as was shown in the Shipman inquiry. Through that lack of accountability, such defamation can destroy a person's life.

Harold Shipman is likely to have been responsible for more than just taking human life. He was able to influence major decisions on child welfare for many years, probably to the detriment of many children who faced loss of contact with their parent as a result of his subversive influence. Something that the inquiry did not fully document, but which is likely to have happened during the many years in which that doctor practised, is how social services and the courts can be heavily influenced by a doctor's report in child welfare hearings. It is essential for the Scottish Parliament to examine all cases in which a child has been separated from a parent or a sibling because of a doctor's report. In the light of the Shipman inquiry, which clearly showed how massive injustice can prevail, all such cases should be reconsidered. The reports are not accountable. No child should be separated from a parent as a result of decisions that were made under the influence of doctors' controversial reports to courts.

An inquiry is being conducted into legal aid. Part of that inquiry should be an examination of the massive funding that the Scottish Legal Aid Board gives to the top 20 lawyers—I have the figures with me for 1997 and 1998. The amount of that funding that is generated by the payments that are made to doctors for reports should be determined. Such funding allows the long-term harassment of an individual who is at the receiving end of injustice, which can stretch over many years. That harassment is made possible almost entirely because of the influential and controversial doctors' reports.

There should also be an examination of what, if any, procedures the GMC has in place to deal with doctors' role in this area. That body does not appear to have proper grievance procedures to deal with the Shipman case, never mind the use of such doctors' reports in courts.

My second petition, PE355, calls on the Scottish Parliament to examine the regulations and procedures regarding local councillors who heavily influence council departments and allocate funding to those departments, then use reports from those departments in court cases involving clients of legal firms in which they are partners. I know of such a case. Such reports can heavily influence decisions that might undermine an individual's human rights and jeopardise the welfare of a child as a result of that conflict of interest. Family Mediation Scotland views such a situation as potentially detrimental to a child's welfare. Such reports include those that are produced by social services, education departments and housing departments.

I apologise for rushing through my statement, but I was conscious of the time.

The Convener: That was an excellent presentation. We will deal with the petitions separately.

Petition PE352 asks the Parliament to examine, in the light of the Shipman inquiry, the use or misuse of doctors' reports by lawyers in court actions. We consulted the Scottish Executive justice department about the petition. It argued that any doctor's report that is submitted in court is open to challenge and that, unless agreement is reached, the doctor can be cross-examined on the report and alternative reports can be brought forward. Why is that safeguard not sufficient?

Mr Shields: I have been through the GMC's grievance procedure and I have found that it seldom takes action to provide a judicial review of any doctor's report.

The legal argument is that a doctor's report is one of the major factors in determining issues relating to a child's welfare. Even when I produced evidence in court to show that the court's decision, based on the doctor's report, went against the interests of my children, my words fell on deaf ears. I can speak only from personal experience,

Col 1045 but the doctor's report was taken as evidence at all times during the complaints procedure that I followed.

I went through that process before the Harold Shipman inquiry. I am concerned by the fact that, in the many cases that the GMC has dealt with—including the deaths of children in the Bristol royal infirmary—it has seemed impossible to get the GMC to challenge any doctor's report.

The Convener: Is it possible to challenge the report during the court procedure?

Mr Shields: That was done but it made no difference to the decisions that were made, despite the fact that contrary evidence was put forward.

The Convener: Could you have brought a report by your doctor before the court?

Mr Shields: The difficulty is that, in a custody situation, both partners share the same practitioner. The doctor decides to make a report in favour of one or the other partner. That situation, too, can compromise a child's welfare.

Dorothy-Grace Elder (Glasgow) (SNP): Were you referring to hospital doctors as well as general practitioners? Obviously, a hospital doctor may have seen the child on only one occasion.

10:15

Mr Shields: I am talking mainly about the local GP who has some knowledge of the family background, although I do not know whether treating a family's colds means that the doctor is in a position to make assessments of a family's character. Harold Shipman, for example, had influence over similar situations in relation to many families. The inquiry, however, examined only the people who were killed; it did not consider the reports that he might have made. The GMC should have procedures in place to deal with that problem.

Dorothy-Grace Elder: Given that the GP will probably not have seen the child very often—because the child has not been around for long—what is the alternative to having GPs produce reports?

Mr Shields: There should be procedures in place to deal with situations when it is found out that a doctor's report has adversely affected a decision and had a negative impact on a child's welfare. The GMC should review its procedures, as the report can massively affect the outcome of the court case. I have found my experience of such a situation to be one of the most difficult and trying times of my life. I find it hard to believe that one person's report could affect my life so dramatically.


Col 1046 John Scott (Ayr) (Con): You suggested that the legal system is open to abuse. Have you specific instances other than your personal circumstances?

Mr Shields: Family Mediation Scotland is quite clear about the fact that substantial damage to children's welfare is done by this unaccountable system. As is proved by the present rules and regulations, the doctor is unaccountable. Many children are suffering psychologically because of such decisions and Family Mediation Scotland is picking up the pieces. I have spoken to the organisation at length and I understand that it suggested many years ago that there should be a long-term review of such decisions to determine the effects on the later life of the child.

John Scott: Who would be in a position to conduct such a review, if not the general practitioner? Ultimately, whose advice does one take in such matters?

Mr Shields: I am putting to the committee only the fact that a problem exists, as is clearly shown by the Shipman inquiry. I hoped that the committee would be able to make suggestions about possible alternatives. I would need time to think about alternatives.

The Convener: We will move on to deal with petition PE355. I understand that you allege that there is a potential for conflict of interest when councillors are also practising lawyers. You believe that such councillors might be able to influence council departments in favour of their clients. You want the Scottish Parliament to examine the regulations that control that. Is that the basic situation?

Mr Shields: Yes.

Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): If a councillor had some other input to a case, and was able to use that influence to change things, would not he or she have to declare that interest and step back from any decision making?

Mr Shields: They may do—but if it took place in the City of London, I am sure that people would see that as insider dealing. If someone is in a powerful position to influence departments, and then uses those departments' reports to gain influence on court decisions, some aspects of that situation could be considered as conflicts of interest. An example of that would be if someone runs a legal firm and also has a heavy influence on decisions on council reports in another area—especially an area that is connected with a child's welfare. I have spoken to Family Mediation Scotland about that and it is concerned about anyone having such undue influence. It has encountered injustice as a result of such conflict of interest.


Col 1047 John Scott: Are there specific cases where that has happened?

Mr Shields: Family Mediation Scotland did not give me details of any specific case, but it is concerned about anything to do with people having undue influence on decision making on a child's welfare—especially if the child is very young.
 

John, have you got a link to the MOS article I can't seem to find it.

BTW, good work.
 

Fran is a longstanding friend of mine who I delivered leaflets for in 1978. Her view on this issue is not driven by party politics.

The MOS article is not on the net.
 

john, many thanks for the info on the MOS article. That is a shame. I covered the Sunday Telegraph's take on my blog.
 

It is nice to see somebody actually speaking out against the Social Services system

my wife and I lost faith in it when they took our daughter away just over 12 months ago, only to return her back to us with red faces.

They hide behind the line "We have to protect children" to remove children from family's, and the problem is that in truth it is not a line you can argue against, because anyone of a sane mind will agree with it in principle.

They lied to both my wife and I, they lied to a solicitor we had present (so much so that she was absolutely livid with the treatment we were all given)

We were advised to take the matter to court by the solicitor, but we didn't because we felt we had no say against the system.

When we tried to complain we were brushed to one side, we sent in a written complaint only to get back a standard letter back saying "We did everything right" etc...

These people are a law unto themselves and they need to be governed closer, they are destroying some people lives and they don't seem to have to answer to anyone.

If you would like to hear more information on what happened to us, we can be contacted via

insane@h0td.com

Good luck, and hopefully you can make a difference, my local MP didn't even bother replying when I tried to contact him.

Lee Wilson
 

Lee

Your link doesn't work.

I don't know if you are aware of www.fassit.co.uk site. Most of us have been on the end of social services abuse and injustice on this site
 

dear john

am please that somebody out there is trying 100% to show the corruptness that is going on in this country.

it is a disgrase that people can be bullied this way by the system. my family are going through a similar problem, and have been bullied by a particular social worker from an association called nyas.

we have our local mp louise elmman supporting us also my husbands cousin is a leader for the city council.

our problems started 18 months ago, my sister who was 26yrs old died suddenly of septeciemia due to acute kidney infection she was a single parent with a 5yr old daughter .
my sister put up with many years of domestic violence and even after she split from the childs father he continued to abuse her,
lots of the violence was reported to the police which is all logged,

anyway after my sister died we applied to the courts for parental rights and was given , the judge wanted to know the wearabouts of the father and the father was then summonsed to court.
well to cut a long story short the child has been placed in his care and all the maternal family are being denyed contact to the child because of the social worker, this social worker has ignored all police reports and evidence and says the father isnt a threat to the child, that we are .
my family are devastated that this has happened and we are concerned for the childs welfare .

the poor childs head must be in a mess as she has been placed in a family that she doesnt know.

also the social worker has slandered us and made us look like dirt to the courts, we want justice especially against the social worker and we will fight till the end to prove the corrupt system.

i pray john that you can help many familys in achieving this

good luck and well done for believing in people like us

anita anderson liverpool
 

Fran and Mike Oborski is originally funded and assisted John Hemming to get into politics when he stood for parliament for the first time. They have vigorously campaigned against injustice including helping with Solidarity when it fought the Russian powers. Sadly Mike died this year and but John and Christine paid their respects. Fran is not the enemy!
 

Another case to add to your list. This one isn't in your area but it has all the elements of a Jeffrey Archer novel.

1. A Social Worker removed a child from a home after a High Court had put a stop on the removal. The Social Services(SS) department were fined £25K.

2. The male child in question is 9 and has behavioural difficulties (he was born prematurely) and has many of the symptoms of Dyspraxia. SS say it is emotional abuse and grabbed his totally normal but highly adoptable 2 year old sister. They will not have him clinically diagnosed, presumably because if it was Dyspraxia, they would have no case.

3. SS leaned on his school to say that he was of normal IQ and forced a head teacher to lie to the family court. She knew and later admitted that he (and his sister) are above average IQ. So are their parents.

4. Despite the paid assessors (paid by SS) recommending that brother and sister should not be split up, SS are pushing to have the sister adopted and the brother (who is unadoptable) left in long term foster care.

5. The reason for taking the sister? Risk of emotional abuse.

6. SS sent their chief inquisitor on a week long jaunt to try and dig up dirt about the parents in their home town (in the North of England). She found nothing.

7. An independent assessment of the Parents found them to be intelligent and normal.

This case comes to a final hearing in September 2007 and unless a miracle happens, the sister will never be seen again. She is highly adoptable. This absolutely stinks.

The Mother has put up a hell of a fight in the High Court but SS have acted duplicitly, arbitrary decisions and told lies.

It's in London btw.

If you want more details, please txt/phone 07811 441918.
 

Hi John, I commend and applaud your fight against the injustice of these childcare cases in the family courts.
Our solicitor, in four hearings, didn't once heed our pleas to oppose the care order application. We are fighting the local authority and social services. And now we find that two of the local magistrates are on the social services select committee. Says it all doesn't it?