Skip to main content

Those new clauses

Family proceedings: evidence

John Hemming
Nicholas Winterton
Dai Davies
Martin Horwood

To move the following clause:

(1) The Children Act 1989 (c. 41) is amended as follows.(2) After section 9 insert-"9A Proceedings on orders with respect to children

(1) No order may be made in any family proceedings that shall prevent the
provision of evidence to—
(a) the police,
(b) any regulatory body that the Secretary of State shall by regulation
define.
(2) In the course of such proceedings it shall be lawful for any person—
(a) to provide evidence to the bodies specified in subsection (1),
(b) to assist any person in the provision of such evidence.

(3) In relation to any family proceedings held in private it shall be lawful for any
person to provide any information relating to such proceedings to—
(a) a Member of Parliament,
(b) a Member of the Welsh Assembly,
(c) a Member of the European Parliament,
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State shall by regulation define.”

(4) In relation to any family proceedings held in private it shall be lawful for any person to provide any information relating to such proceedings to any other person for the purposes of obtaining advice, performing research or ensuring the enforcement of the law or regulatory procedures.

Explanation:
This is a “motherhood and apple pie” new clause that ensures that the evidence of bad practise can be reported to the authorities and allows MPs access to all the paperwork relating to Family Court procedures. It also starts levelling the playing field so that parties can obtain additional expert evidence without the permission of judge – which is often refused.

Issue of written judgment relating to a court order in family proceedings

John Hemming
Nicholas Winterton
Dai Davies
Martin Horwood

To move the following Clause:-

(1) The Children Act 1989 (c. 41) is amended as follows.(2) After section 8 insert-
Issue of written judgment relating to a court order in family proceedings

(1) When issuing an order in any family proceedings a court shall issue a written
judgment in respect of that order.
(2) No children under the age of 16 shall be identified by name in that judgment.
(3) A judgment issued under subsection (1) will be issued to all parties to
proceedings.
(4) Parents of children in family proceedings, who were party to those proceedings, may publish the judgment issued under subsection (1)
(5) Parents of children in family proceedings, who were party to those proceedings, may publish any other documents that are part of such proceedings on the condition that documents are redacted to remove the names of any children under 16.”

Explanation:
This new clause increases the accountability of family court decisions by requiring an anonymous judgment as suggested by Justice Ryder (reported The Times 16th June). It also allows the reasoning of the court to be analysed publicly, but without naming the children.

Comments

sarah crompton said…
I think it is important parents can have a say in an expert. Court appointed experts often write reports to support what the court wishes a problem to be then uses the report to take perfectly happy healthy children into care. it is also vital proper complaints procedures are set up by impartial processes that allow children/parents to complain about people they are not happy about-social workers, CAFCASS officers. Complaints are ignored or treated as shameful by courts.
Donna said…
Donna > says

All family's should have the right to appeal against a judges judgement in fact finding cases.
In family court proceeding's the law should be changed as fact finding cases are unfairly judged. Weighing up the balance on probability with out any real evidence or medical evidence is
an injustice to those who are judged and wrongly accused of something they haven't done. There are to many family's being torn apart by these procedure's, children and babies are snatched and ripped away from there parents, never to be returned or see again. There is no justice within the law system of today. Social services have far to much power within this world.

Who made them God and protector over all human life ?????

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…