• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Monthly Archives: February 2012

My Anywhere Working Tips (Aka Our shameless effort to win some cool free stuff)

27 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Notes

≈ Leave a comment

Anywhere Working have started a competition which will see the winner get some pretty sexy gadgets for their mobile working lifestyle and we are shamelessly entering the competition. All you have to do is write a blog post about your tips for working and you could be in with a chance of getting some seriously nifty hardware.

Although our next paragraph could be viewed as blatant brown-nosing, we do dig Anywhere Working. Like thousands of people across the country, we lead a mobile work life, working in our study, cafes, trains and tubes, letting our work flow through our daily life so we can flow better through life in general.  Here are our top tips for a fabulous work life >>>>

  • Do something you really, really love. You might not earn millions to start with, but the job satisfaction alone is better than any Lizard-shaped Louis Vuitton handbag. (And you’ll be more productive, too)
  • Work to love, love to work. That sounds a bit odd, and to be honest we’re not sure how catchy that is, but by making work a labour of love your whole mindset changes and it no longer becomes a chore. You won’t need any motivation to make it from the bedroom to the lounge (or toilet), where your computer awaits ….
  • Go all Jane Fonda on yourself: flexible working is the future and it also means you can spend more time with your family. You know that crazy aunty with the outrageous inheritance? We don’t mean her. (Unless you want us to mean her).
  • And finally….. Don’t forget the Holy Techie Trinity >>> Your laptop, your popsicles, your wallet and your watch! Try switching up your work environment. Getting cabin fever in the kitchen? Need to aerate your mandate? By taking all the above, you can roam like your broadband, enjoying different places and faces while you work. Good for inspiration and for losing track of time…. which is why we added the watch 🙂 (We have no idea why the popsicles are in there).

No more nine to five, baby…….

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

LoreCast

27 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Podcast

≈ Leave a comment

This week, John Bolch and Researching Reform talk about the current news relating to family arbitration, shocking statistics on children not being given proper notice before being placed into foster homes, how Nigerian customary law has been put in the spotlight in the family courts and Michael Gove’s speech on improving the adoption system.

Lorecast for the week to the 27th February, 2012

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question it!

27 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Question It

≈ 2 Comments

Children and Young People Now are reporting that counsellors are seeing a rise in teenagers with depression, with some initial research suggesting that family break ups and social media are a significant source of that depression. The article goes on to say that parents need to work at supporting children to express their feelings in an environment of, we presume, emotional safety as well as physical safety .

But there must be reasons why children are losing out on the support they need. What do you think may be the reason for a potential increase in children feeling depressed and does it really have to do with a lack of support?

Possible answer: Yes, we think it does. Parents work so hard, and usually both parents today work conventional hours which means that they are both exhausted and both spending minimal amounts of quality time with their children, through no fault of their own.

The impact of that is that children lose out on seeing and feeling their parents express their love and support for them and begin to tackle the world on their own. This causes huge levels of stress and the only way to reduce them is to give parents the opportunity to work in ways that are flexible and will allow them time to be with their children.An organisation we feel will be very much a positive part of the future is Anywhere Working. Parents are already cottoning on the possibility of working from home: more time with your little ones, productive work hours and a win-win for the whole family.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Definition of Domestic Violence: Consultation

23 Thursday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Children, Family Law

≈ 19 Comments

This consultation is perhaps one of the most important to date. Domestic violence is a highly complex set of behavioural patterns, sometimes misunderstood and worryingly overlooked, often with disastrous consequences and for those of us who work in the family justice system it is a form of abuse we see too often, and in the many forms it can take.

The current definition of domestic violence is: any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members”.

The consultation is thinking about widening this definition to include ‘coercive control’, as domestic violence is often characterised by one person exerting control over another and it is that control which experts believe lead to domestic violence-related deaths; far more so, they say, than any other type of physical behaviour within domestic violence cases, prior to the physical act of homicide. (The BBC website has a very good article on this topic).

Now, the Home Office have released this questionnaire, which essentially seeks to examine the current definition of domestic violence and whether or not it should be changed. There are four options offered, which are:

Option 1 – The definition of domestic violence remains the same
Option 2 – The definition of domestic violence is amended to include coercive control
Option 3 – The government’s definition of domestic violence is extended to all 16-17 year olds
Option 4 – The government’s definition of domestic violence is extended to all those under 18
The consultation is open to anyone who has an interest in the field, from members of the public to key partners, as the consultation calls them. (More information on the consultation itself can be found here).
The deadline for the consultation is 30th March, 2012.
If you would rather send the Home Office an email and not fill out the questionnaire, you can contact them at:
DVdefinition@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
Or send them a letter at:

Violent and youth crime prevention unit,

4th floor, Fry Building, Home Office,

2 Marsham Street,
London,
SW1P 4DF
Please take the time to fill out the questionnaire if you can. Domestic violence needs to be fully addressed. A sound definition will save lives.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

More Haste Less Speed: Gove’s Grimm Tales

23 Thursday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Children, Family Law

≈ 3 Comments

Why is it that when pressure groups, think tanks and organisations come together to offer sensible suggestions to improving the family justice system, the government seizes on the idea of change as a vote winner and worsens the systems it seeks to change rather than reforms them?

Part of the problem stems from not understanding the systems they’re working with as a whole, having only a very limited knowledge of them combined with having to heed the clamours of key stakeholders battering down government’s doors to make sure their views are prioritised, rather than those views which actually solve problems.

This latest news item mentions a speech that will be given this morning by Michael Gove on the latest plans to ‘dismantle a bloated adoption system’.  It is believed that Gove will go on to say, “Ministers will back social workers when they intervene and take children into care; there has been too much reluctance to remove children from “outright abuse and neglect”.

The rather ranty quotations in the article, focusing not on competency inside the system, quality of social care or adoption as a means of providing a loving home, suggest a dangerous recklessness by an individual vying for popularity. Social workers are already starting to feel concerned. Nushra Mansuri, a professional officer for the British Association of Social Workers, felt there was room for improvement, but said “performance indicators immediately set off alarm bells.

She goes on to say, “This was tried under the Blair government and led to accusations of targets leading to perverse incentives [to place children for adoption].”

Targets had a disastrous effect on children. And rushing through adoptions will do the same.

We would suggest reforming the system from the inside out, not looking at superficial statistics to move an agenda. How do these gentleman get to run entire departments into the ground? Absolutely astounding.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Gender Based Abortions: The Right to Life Versus the Right to Choose

23 Thursday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Children

≈ 1 Comment

As we slinked our way through the morning news we found this fascinating article, which will no doubt spark a lot of debate in the next few days.

The article tells us that The Department of Health has launched an enquiry into the allegation that doctors are agreeing to abort unborn babies on the basis of their gender. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley tells us in the news item that gender based abortion is illegal in the UK and “morally wrong”. But is it?

The law is clear: gender based abortions in the UK are not allowed and so doctors who practice such things are breaking the law. And whilst we would not want to terminate our unborn baby on the basis of gender, what moral reasons, other than the well established anti-abortion lobby’s arguments, could there be for denying parents the right to choose and isn’t restricting that right similar to China’s potentially morally dubious and pragmatically implemented one child policy?

Perhaps a more compelling argument against gender based abortion lies in the possible imbalances this might cause in relation to the number of men and women in the country. Countries like China and India have practiced gender based abortion as part of a wider set of policies and the results can and do alter the natural ratio of men to women, but whether the degree of alteration is significant is also an interesting issue in and of itself. Perhaps of greater concern is whether making sex selection illegal results in the neglect and even death of delivered babies, once they return home with their perhaps disappointed parents.

But where do we draw the line? Selection of eye colour, intelligence, body type? Yet, perhaps the line is already being drawn, underscored by more subtle practices, like parents choosing to go on special diets which are said to encourage one gender or another or simply going to a country where it is legal to have sex selection treatment.

Another thought-provoking area lies in the time of abortion: if gender based abortion was legal, how long after the embryo fertilizes should an abortion be allowed to take place and should this differ from the guidelines for perceived conventional types of abortion in any event? There are several more very interesting arguments both for and against sex selection in this article from Global Change and well worth a read. This article from the BBC’s website also explains the law in the UK and the increasing trend, even back in 2003 of families going abroad to use sex selection services.

Perhaps it all boils down to the reasons for sex selection. At the moment, sex selection is allowed if there is a chance of a baby carrying a genetic disease which affects only males. (The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority were asked to review the law in this area in 2003 and this policy makes up part of their findings).

But what if we lived in a world where something happened to the female population and we desperately needed to re-populate, what then? Would the government be forced to legalise sex selection, even make it mandatory? And how will our own, perhaps changing views, on playing God affect our perceptions of genetic discrimination and our views on the world around us in the future?  There are certainly reasons why this fascinating area needs some thorough thinking done on it.

What do you think? Should sex selection be legalised or is the State justified in suppressing our right to choose?

Kolhapur, Maharashtra: In Some Parts of the World It is Illegal to Disclose the Gender of a Baby Before He or She is Born

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Coalition for Equal Marriage: Petition (No, don’t run away)!!!!

22 Wednesday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Family Law

≈ 10 Comments

Researching Reform thinks this is a very good petition, so we’re sharing it. But it’s a petition with a twist – a very, very interesting one.

As it suggests, the Coalition for Equal Marriage petition is calling for all types of marriage (amongst two consenting adults) to be given the same status across the board and is of course focused on removing the current stigma in politics associated with same-sex marriage.

But it doesn’t end there. There is a second petition, which is mentioned in the first, it’s Devil’s Advocate Doppelganger if you will, which is called The Coalition for Marriage. In this second petition, the title of which is “Don’t play politics – One Man plus One Woman with Marriage” you are asked to sign if you feel marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. Like the first petition, there is a section on the page which puts arguments forward for its position. Both petitions have compelling arguments, but we’ll leave you to guess which one we signed (no peaking at the signature list)!

As they stand, the petition for the Coalition for Equal Marriage has 1,391 signatures, 432 tweets and 622 ‘Likes’ on Facebook. In contrast, the Coalition for Marriage’s petition has 27,190 signatures, 787 tweets and 960 ‘Likes’ on Facebook.

Perhaps just as fascinating is the list of political and high-profile signatories for the second petition campaigning for marriage to remain a heterosexual affair. Unsurprisingly perhaps, most of the signatories hail from the religious sector and appear to be backed by government. Another odd aspect of this petition is the assertion in the About Section that, “The Coalition is committed to a reasoned and courteous debate on this issue, and will highlight any intimidation or intolerance shown to supporters of traditional marriage“. No mention though, of highlighting any intimidation or intolerance of those who oppose it. In any event, given that this coalition wish to attack the concept of same-sex marriage, we can’t help but feel icky about their spiel.

But the really big twist? The first petition, created by two men who want nothing more than to get married was created in response to the second petition (have we confused you yet… we’re going to trip over ourselves in a minute but we’ll keep going until we do).

It takes less than twenty seconds to sign a petition… which one will you sign? 🙂

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Shameful Truth: Uncovering Child Abuse in the Church

21 Tuesday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Children

≈ 5 Comments

Many thanks to Phil Johnson for sharing this BBC film about child abuse in the Church and in particular the diocese of Chichester. The twelve-minute film was made with Colin Campbell from the BBC and is a must-see.

Although paedophilia is not confined to the Church, it is a very real phenomenon and one that needs to be properly addressed. In the film, we learn that priests who have previous convictions for sexual offences against children have been allowed to be ordained and practice in the community. The culture of repression and denial in the Church on this issue is also significant, creating even more distrust and anger not just with priests but with religion and Christianity in general.

This post follows on from a meeting that took place in London recently, focusing on the issue of abuse within the Church and was very well attended, by high-profile campaigners, journalists and lawyers as well as the victims themselves.

If you have twelve minutes to spare, please do watch the video. We are a democratic country – no form of abuse should go unchallenged.

(Please click on the image above to access the video and other links relating to the topic of child abuse in the Church)

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Kids Coach & The Parent’s Tool Kit: Interview

21 Tuesday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Children, Podcast

≈ Leave a comment

Researching Reform had the privilege of interviewing the UK’s Number One Kids Coach, Naomi Richards about her new book “The Parent’s Tool Kit“. We read it, we loved it and we think you will too. Tune in to the interview below to find out all about Naomi and her unique new book. (Just click on the image below to access the interview – easy)!

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Stop Church Child Abuse: Minutes of the Meeting

20 Monday Feb 2012

Posted by Natasha in Children, Family Law, Notes

≈ 4 Comments

On 21st January, we put up a post on a meeting which was taking place to discuss the issue of child abuse within the church; the minutes of this meeting are now available.

The meeting was held in London and was organised by highly concerned lawyers and victims of this kind of abuse. It was also attended by Esther Rantzen, film makers, journalists and charities.  The minutes can  be found below:

Minutes of Meeting of Interest Groups

27 January 2012

Conway Hall London 1.30 – 3.30 pm

 

David Greenwood (Chair) explained the reason for the convening of the meeting was that he and others had noticed an escalation in complaints of abuse by members of church organisations and he believed that there had been a number of missed opportunities for churches of all denominations to put in place and implement effective safeguarding procedures for children.

Richard Scorer of Pannone LLP spoke regarding the level of press interest and on legislation on Public Inquiries.  Richard explained that the call for a public enquiry as set out in the Times article on the 17 January 2012 needs to be built by working effectively with the media.  

Richard mentioned that the national catholic safeguarding commission has an annual budget of only £30,000 and that Baroness Scotland has recently resigned as it’s chair.  He also mentioned that a Catholic safeguarding conference is due to take place on the 6 February 2012 in Rome and it is highly likely that there will be very little input from survivors.

Richard went on to mention that the Inquiries Act 2005 enables ministers to set up an inquiry so Richard suggests that we should focus attention on bringing this issue to the attention of the relevant ministers.  He suggests that we should identify post Nolan commission cover up cases.  Richard pointed out that Michael Gove needs to be educated as his recent comment that he has confidence in Vincent Nichols suggests that there are gaps in his knowledge of him.  

Anne Lawrence of Ministry and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors (MACAS) spoke.  She explained that her view was abuse was endemic in the Catholic church and Church of England and as the two organisations are intertwined with the state we would be directly challenging the state in our call for a public enquiry and changes to the law.  She expressed her view that there are likely to be compromises to be made in dealing with the scope of the enquiry.  She explained the background to her comment is that she sees churches trying to explain abuse away by saying that the problem they have is small or does not exist.  She had some interesting statistics and confirmed that every catholic order has had schools in which there have been abuse allegations.  Churches will say that it is limited and they will try to minimise abuse and explain that churches leaders point to the Nolan Commission 2001 to say that they have put their house in order but she makes the observation that the Nolan Commission did not look at the extent of the abuse but only really dealt with the question of ‘what can we be seen to do about protecting children?’ Anne went on to say that there is a mindset of church organisations minimising abuse.  She explained that there appeared to be a dynamic of abuse and then collusion after the event in some church organisations and we need to gather all possible evidence together and put together a series of cases to demonstrate the point.   She mentions the cases of Pearce at Ealing, Robinson in the Arch Diocese of Birmingham and Clonan also in the Arch Diocese of Birmingham.   These are only a few  of the cases which could be used.   Ann suggests that we need an open and transparent analysis as to the extent of abuse and cover ups and only a public enquiry will be able to cut through the churches’ structures.   She mentioned that Northern Ireland, Australia, Germany, The Netherlands and Ireland have all held enquiries so why can’t England and Wales?  She suggests that the department of education is likely to be the department most likely to be the decision maker of a public enquiry. She also mentioned that in North Wales an enquiry took place and said that there are many more children who had  been abused in church organisations.  

Tracey Storey of Irwin Mitchell Solicitors made a point that many do not realise how deeply embedded the culture of self protection is within church organisations. 

Tom Perry, co writer of the docu-film “Chosen”, made a point that the Carlisle Report into Ealing Abbey was an exercise in re veneering and highlighted the lack of transparency involved with that inquiry. 

Phillip Johnson who has complaints with the diocese of Chichester criticisms of the Butler-Sloss Inquiry.

Sue Cox of survivorsvoice-Europe explained that she had spoken at the protest the pope march in 2010  suggesting that the government appeared blind to the number of complaints of abuse. She made a point that in the last 10 years the approach of the Catholic church had not changed and that this had become an enormous issue.    Statistics on the recent study of abuse in the Netherlands states that since 1940 10% of Dutch people have been abused by catholic clergy.  She gave the example of the 70 deaf victims in Verona who had been horribly abused and spoke highly of their courage to come forward.

Sue made the point that she had met Frederico Lambardi, spokesman for the Pope and that Lombardi appearing to be deaf of the calls for real change and instead simply makes the point that other churches have had complaints of abuse recorded against them.   She also makes the point that church organisations should be kept out of any decision making process.

Tracey Storey of Irwin Mitchell made a point that since changes in the civil law the depth of the legal enquiry into church records has become shallower. 

Esther Rantzen of Child Line explained that she was shocked by the cover ups and conspiracies.   Whilst she is not convinced that a public enquiry will take place, she is enthusiastic to help possibly through the medium of film or theatre. Esther made links with others at the meeting.

Tom Perry co-author of chosen certainly has a feeling that nothing has changed.  In 1964 when he was abused there was no legal requirement for a school to report anyone and he stated that 2012 this is still the same position.  Whilst there was discussion with Esther Rantzen and Anne Lawrence regarding this point any obligation to report abuse is non statutory would be simply good practice as opposed to a legal obligation.

Jonathan Wheeler of Bolt Burdon Solicitors made 4 points. He supported the call for it to be made an offence to fail to report suspected abuse. He suggested a redress scheme would assist victims. He felt a well known figurehead would also be useful for a media campaign. Jonathan also felt the campaign should be driven by survivors.

There were further suggestions from others present at the meeting notably regarding the inclusion of other denominations such as Islam and Shaun O’Neill from the Times stressed the sensitivity of working on a media strategy.  

It was agreed that a working party would be formed comprising of:

David Greenwood

Richard Scorer

Anne Lawrence

A representative from CCPAS

A representative from the Lantern Project,

Peter Saunders of NAPAC

Their task was to work on gathering more evidence, making political connections and starting a medical campaign.

David thanked all for attending and for offering their support.

The meeting closed at 3.30 pm

Many thanks to David Greenwood, who is a partner at Jordans Solicitors, for allowing us to post the minutes and for alerting us to this event.

Share this:

  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,400 other followers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

February 2012
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  
« Jan   Mar »

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

Cancel
loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: