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.
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
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 ?????