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

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…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…