The Petition of an interpreter working in England,
Declares that the interpreter works in family court proceedings translating for families who speak Czech and Slovak.
She has been shocked at the way in which a judge was partial in proceedings and the evidence that was accepted which would never be accepted anywhere else in courts. There was a social worker who was interrogated by both sides who was asked whether the grandmother behaved appropriately with her daughter in the contact centre and the social worker said “yes she did”. The next question was whether she would behave appropriately in her own house. The social worker said that she could not say that she would and hence the court decided not to place the child with the grandmother. Furthermore the grandparents were criticised for approaching the media in England.
In a second case the family had signed documentation that they did not understand thereby giving their children to the local authority and this documentation was used to get the children adopted.
In other cases really flimsy evidence is accepted and parents are misled by their legal advisors into accepting the case against them because they may then get the children returned. The parents then find that the children are adopted using the fact that the parents had accepted the case against them as evidence.
Additionally a mother was forced to sign documents disowning Slovak nationality for her child on the basis that otherwise she would be imprisoned.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons establishes an inquiry into the quality of evidence accepted in family court proceedings.
Obviously I know who the interpreter is. However, that information is not publicly available. This is a good mechanism for whistleblowers to put information into the public domain protected by parliamentary privilege (in other words it is not subject to contempt of court proceedings) without themselves being identified. (A petition is a proceeding in parliament.)