John Hemming's Web Log

This story in The Telegraph is a step beyond the normal abuses in the family courts (and court of protection). This was a pregnant mother visiting the UK for a training course lasting only two weeks. It ends up with her baby being taken through a forcible caesarean and then placed for adoption for the usual spurious reasons that are used. Oddly enough last night I had another case of someone who was a foreign mother having her children taken for the system whilst she is deported. This is much like the case from which I highlighted a JR decision earlier this year. Mum was deported and the child kept. The Italian case is one about which more will be heard. Also the one raised with me last night. The USA case is one which has had some attention. In essence families count for nothing in the modern family court. The "best interests of the child" are "paramount" which means that what the social workers say goes. If a social worker does not say what the manage...

The case of Mark and Kerry McDougall who went to Ireland because she was considered not to have the capacity to marry or look after children is an important case. They have lived with two children in Ireland, but have now returned to Fife. The authorities have suddenly decided to take an interest without any good reason. This raises serious concerns about the way in which assessments are done in the UK.

Lets look at the story today: The children's services department at Birmingham City Council could be taken over by the Department for Education (DfE), the BBC has learned. and that of October More than a fifth of frontline social worker posts are unfilled in Birmingham, it has been revealed. A manager in Birmingham told me that he knew of experienced people who could be employed as social workers in Birmingham, but the government would not allow them because they did not have the right piece of paperwork. We should not be surprised of the existence of problems if only 80% of the staff are in place. Temporary agency staff are not the solution.

This case is an interesting one just reported by the Court of Appeal. The first question that should be asked is why it took the English judicial system over a year to decide it did not have jurisdiction. The second question is why the English Courts have decided there is an issue when the Swedish Courts have not. They cannot both be right. It is my view that the evidence in the family courts in England is frequently intellectually unreliable and as a consequence the decisions are not well grounded in reality. This case seems to substantiate my view and give good reasons why the system in England takes the wrong children into care.

I noted that the current council proposals are now much like my proposals of 2003. I voted against Metro in 1992. I thought that we should stick to heavy rail and bus/trolley bus. The image is my proposal from 2003 for Birmingham which is pretty well the current council proposal. I have a personal minority view historically otherwise I would have prioritised buses in the city centre rather than metro. However, c'est la vie.

To me the thing that is clear is that the council does not seem to care about the impact on Omar of their legal threats. I am trying to get the council to respond sensibly, but they don't seem able to.

This is not, however, the end of the process to get Stechford Railway Station's access issues resolved. It is, however, an important first step.

This is not, however, the end of the process to get Stechford Railway Station's access issues resolved. It is, however, an important first step.

Appealing this case would be now moot. However, there are some points to be made. Firstly, it is in my view a responsibility of parents who separate to make reasonable efforts to ensure that a good relationship is maintained between both parents and children. There are circumstances under which this is obviously not reasonable (when one of the parents is a real threat to the children). However, this is clearly a responsibility. However, the objective of maintaining contact between parent and child does not permit the court to behave unlawfully. There are a number of problems with this case. The first is that the court should not ordinarily hear a contempt hearing of its own motion. The second hearing (and the third) should have been held by a different judge to the one who heard it. The second is that legal assistance should have been made available before the grandparents and aunt were locked up on bail. It raises a question really as to whether effectively a form of collec...

For me the particularly interesting aspect of the secret imprisonment of 11th October is that it appears that the judge imprisoned the mother because the judge did not believe what she said. Now that means that the judge is actually prosecuting the mother for perjury as well as sitting in judgment. The mother said her children were somewhere, but they were not. The point about this is that there are lots of legal precedents that the judge should not sit in judgment on this case and hence it could be challenged on appeal. How does one do that when one knows neither the name of the mother of her solicitors.