Skip to main content

Family Justice Bill Draft published for consultation

My Family Justice Private Members bill has now been published for public consultation on my website here The version that goes to the second reading is likely to be different. It has also been sent formally to the government for consultation. Details of who to respond to and the deadline (which is 20th September) are in the bill. It has interleaved explanatory notes.


Laura Halligan said…
I have this page open and bookmarked. I will read through your family bill thouroughly and give you my oppinion. with love xoxo
Great ! If they would only accept Part 2 - 8 and Part 2 - 11, the remaining should come from.
John Allman said…
It would be helpful to have instructions as to how one may to respond to the consultation.
John Hemming said…
See the end of the bill.
Laura Halligan said…
Response to Mr Hemming Family Justice Bill 2012
1. Child case conference.
I find that a lot of the boxes are ticked but it is routine and not with love. I feel it must be essential that acting on what is the most loving thing to do for the child should be paramount in all case conferences. They always act on worst case scenario instead of what is really best for the child’s welfare. The worst case scenario never occurred or came close within my case. They need to review their strategies on decision making so that choices are made with the happiness and love that the child receives as well as education being paramount. Keeping a stable environment for the child should be priority.
It is also important that the child’s opinion is heard and noted regardless of the age. If they can communicate their wishes then their wishes should be taken into consideration.
Also not everyone who is meant to attend the case conference does always attend.
It is essential that those involved with power approach their position from a humbled perspective and not with the ego trip that they are often on within most interaction with family services. They are either on an ego trip or its just plain arrogance. They are often in denial, dishonesty even to children, and ritual and robotic without true consideration. They always claim to want to do the best for the child. The people learn a set number of phrases they use to explain their position. Like we do what is best for Gracie. They just repeat that and in their eyes it justifies their position and choices. Yet there is no truth in it when moments earlier they just lied out right to my child. The services have lied many times to my daughter right in front of my face. Made it look like I was lying to my daughter, I say I will be back in a moment and the social worker was there when I said this to my daughter. Then they will not let me go back and say good bye. This is because they are on power and ego trips and just enjoy steeling your position as a responsible and moral parent. They try and make you look bad in the eyes of your child. It is paramount that the people in charge of children also have a heart and do not take the position as social worker because it makes them feel important and strokes their own ego.
Laura Halligan said…
3. Yes it is essential the proper investigations and people are provided. My daughter told me of ill events that I feel she could not just imagine. I feel there is some truth in what she says, however because they have already done investigation they said she just made it up. However I do not trust this as I was not present. They have made many lies up about me so they could just easily make lies up about my daughter. I feel the parent has a right to private time with their child as I have none. So that the child has a person they LOVE there to express themselves to and not just another stranger. LOVE is essential in a child’s life not these constant strangers they keep involving in my babies life. As it moves from social worker to social worker. My daughter must have met more strangers and people pretending to care for her within the last 1.5 years than she has in her whole life. They have caused nothing but disharmony, confusion, dishonesty and pain for my daughter.
The social worker told me that my child just made things up and had a wild imagination. I said my daughter never spoke of such horrors ever before in her life. When I saw Gracie she would tell me of eyes popping out of baby’s heads and skin peeling off their bodies and blood is squirting at the ceiling and much more graphic detail. For months my daughter would talk of related horrors every time I saw her and when I told my concerns to the social worker they said it is just imagination. However Laura bringing too much love and toys and joy for my child was an issue! Does this not show the complete destructive behaviour and position the authorities take? They are concerned about me giving my child too much love, but they completely disregard the talk of complete horror and say that is okay and normal child behaviour. My daughter never uttered a word of such horror in her life before taken into the care of the authorities. They energy steel, I feel some do it by accident but others do it on purpose. My daughter was talking of horrors that where 18+ and the fact the social worker said this was normal child behaviour shows that the social worker obviously does not understand what is acceptable environment and behaviour for a child of 4 years old.
Well Lancashire county council is who Gracie was in care with when she talked of such horrors. So it makes sense that there are other cases of them not protecting the child’s safety both sexually and physically. I did say that they where energy steeling from us and sent this email to Lancashire council. The next day they put my child in foster care, it felt like they were taking the opportunity to energy steel as they put her within a nice foster family and for no reason at all moved her to a horrible family where she was physically abused that I witnessed myself, when the carer grabbed my baby by the arm and swung my daughter round and pulled her right to his face and said “don’t you ever do that to your mother”. She was only playing with her coat. If he could show abuse like that in front of me then what was going on when I was not there? I feel the authority purposely put my child in a place of pain because I said that they where energy steeling from us. The facts are true that they moved my child from a happy foster home to a very destructive one for no reason at all. That eventually I managed to move her from to a more stable environment.
The local authority and CAFCAS where insisting that Gracie would have to accept the fact that I was no longer the no 1 person in her life. The judge made it quite clear that Gracie should not have to accept this and that I should always be the no 1 person in her life. This I appreciate and I do Feel that the judge was on my side throughout all proceedings.
Laura Halligan said…
6. The child’s welfare should be paramount; however they can always find reasons to justify their decisions that make it sound like they do have the child’s best interests at hand when in reality they do not. It is essential that the employers of the local council are humble and moral people who are doing what is the most loving thing for the child and make choices based on their hearts and not what they fear or makes them feel powerful.
The judge insisted I saw Gracie once a week while the local authority where fighting for 6 times a year. The fact that the local authorities recommendations were completely opposite to what was in my child’s best interest and what the judge ordered, shows that they do not really do what is best for the child, yet they have a long time to make all the wrong choices before it goes to the final hearing and the parents and family actually have a voice to be heard.
I am not allowed a proper relationship with my daughter as we are cooped up in a room together. We do not get to enjoy the blessings of nature and freedom to run and play and laugh. We are locked in a cage.
Also a meaningful relationship includes me being able to teach my daughter my skills and pass on my knowledge to my child and my love. A meaningful relationship means being able to spend quality time together without the interruption of staff. I taught piano for 7 years and am at grade 8 level when I play. I don’t play now at all because I don’t have my Angel Gracie. I would play the piano and Gracie would dance around the house like a ballerina and an Angel, she would make up moves spontaneously. The authority and destruction they have caused has taken away from my daughter a lot of that spontaneous creation on the innocence of beauty. I do not get to teach her piano or any of my skills. We are in a very fake environment with none of the facilities available to pass on my abilities and knowledge to my daughter.
I am skilled in many areas and also have a degree in computer science. My daughter is being deprived of my love, my affection and my focused attention, I have a high attention span and IQ and I did pass the test for MENSA, so Gracie is also being deprived of my academic abilities as well as my inner wisdom and unconditional love.
Laura Halligan said…
8. Yes the solicitors and authorities fear the involvement from Member of Parliament, lords, ladies and other people that I have contacted for help throughout the 1.5 years that my child has been out of my care.

9. I also feel as well as truthful comments being allowed to be heard. Also lies and false comments need to be investigatered properly. Once a judge has confirmed that he does not agree with the authority’s recommendations then those authorities involved should them be fully investigatered. So that they do not continue to make wrong recommendations and get better at being deceitful and cut themselves off to what really matters. If they continue to get away with making bad choices for children, then they will not stop and they will carry on in the same light. The authorities behaviour should be monitored properly so that when it is obviously proven, like in my situation, that the authorities recommendations where wrong, then the authorities who made those recommendation should then be investigatered to ensure they are doing their job properly. This would encourage all authorities to make sure they are making the right choices and not that they feel they can do whatever they want as their position is never in jeopardy. They need to feel the responsibility of their choices and they need to feel it is paramount for them to make the right choices for the children involved or their job is at risk otherwise. They need to feel this pressure in order to ensure that the right decisions are made within every child’s situation.

11. Yes we should be able to make a record of the hearing that is tape reordered too in case conferences too and in every contact with child so that we have the parent’s opinion to the contact as well as the authorities.

12. Yes we do need to be able to challenge the decision of psychologists, I am sure that people can pay these people extra money in order to get a report that they want. I will prove my mental capacity and stability by responding to this bill as I am and also by doing everything else within the public eye on the internet.
Laura Halligan said…
my full response to your family bill is here:

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…