Skip to main content

In the Sunday Telegraph Today

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies
A proposal to take a newborn baby into care in Calderdale

The first of the stories is important. It recognises that the people investigating the public family law system are those who do not wish to recognise errors in it because they are responsible for errors.

What is actually needed is a review that looks at a wide range of cases and what is done in other countries. It is true that we cannot prevent all deaths. However, we should be looking at what is the better approach. Much that the current system causes a mass of misery for both children and parents (and the extended family) I contend that it actually fails to prevent the more serious cases of abuse that result in death - that could be prevented.

In itself by making mothers and fathers frightened of the system we end up with support services that people are frightened of talking to. That is not good.

The second story is one of many where the allegations of potential emotional abuse give rise to a child being removed from its family for ever.

Comments

moira said…
In itself by making mothers and fathers frightened of the system we end up with support services that people are frightened of talking to. That is not good.QUOTE

This needs to be addressed. Frequently Social services use the fact that parents have been abused by them to justify further abuse,by saying the child may be at risk as the parent will not use social services again.
This has actually been used in court against people.
The logic SS use is warped and unfair.Parents are damned whatever they do.

I know a parent,who has never abused her children,but bullied and abused into complying with their demands.After this the social worker said "we have to find out what support you need!"Support is the last thing this person has received!

Unfortunately the word support is being used to mean observation by SS to comply with their demands.
These families are crying with their children at night,as they are so frightened of social services.
The truth is,its frightening how social services can make a case out of nothing and how easy it is to get to court.
Half of parents who put their children in voluntary care do not get them back.Even when they are assured "we keep families together." So how can parents ask for any respite,thinking a short break is good for the family,when they realise that they may have a court battle to get them back!
Parents are punished for asking for help and treated as though they are incompetent or suspect.

Social services are now regarded as a social police force by families and not an organisation that does anything positive to help.

This fear is driving parents abroad where foreign social services are much more caring and supportive.Where strong evidence is needed to obtain orders and not the weak threshold criteria that Britain uses.
A barrister tole me you don't need threshold evidence of significant harm to gain an interim care order. The court can gain one on the basis of a social worker saying it is in the child's best interests.
Therefore if you are unfortunate to get a malicious and incompetent social worker then your family is doomed.

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…