As we keep an eye on the Children and Families Bill‘s movements through Parliament, the latest news is just in. There are two more provisional sittings for the Bill, on the 23rd and 25th April respectively, with the Committee expected to report on the discussions by the 25th April.
It is not clear from the Parliament website nor the update we received whether the second provisional sitting which takes place on the 25th April as well, is allotted for further discussion or indeed for the Committee to report on their findings. We shall no doubt find out in due course.
Researching Reform 
The major and critical issue which this Committee must now face, is how to prevent such fathers as Mick Philpott from gaining contact with his other children?. As the law is presently written and the way in which the Courts interpret and implement that law, then Mick Philpott would have every right to have contact with his other children, as have many other similar fathers with convictions for violence, child abuse, child rape, etc etc. Unless of course, you believe that Mick Philpott should have such contact!.
LikeLike
Maybe rwhiston could offer what a male supremacist would consider as appropriate on this issue?.
LikeLike
Ragnvald…….!
LikeLike
Several non addictive,non criminal mothers who have contacted me have been forbidden by family court judges from communicating in any way with their own children;The judges have no problem doing this and blaming these women because their children reported sexual abuse by their fathers to their schools or doctors and mothers actually believed them !It must be pretty easy for any judge to make the same order against the very criminal Philpott.
LikeLike
An interesting thought, but I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that. The inalienable Family Court mantra for fathers is: “It doesn’t matter what he’s done, he’s still the child’s father and has the right to have contact!.” and for the mother the mantra is: “She opposes the father having contact, so he will be given residency and she will only be allowed very occasional strictly supervised contact, if any at all.”. Additional restrictions are then made that any further allegations of abuse by the child against the father must not be reported to the child protection authorities or police, and if the child exhibits emotional/behavioural disorders, then the child must not be taken for psychological counselling (medical treatment). This occurs with regul;arity in Australian Family Courts [e.g. Langmeil & Grange/ Aligante & Waugh/ Krach & Krach etc etc].
LikeLike
Hi Ragnvald, yes, the courts do often try to enforce contact with fathers whose records are worrying, but for your interest see this recent case where a father was not only denied contact but had his PR stripped from him. It’s a controversial case in the UK, for all the reasons you mention above.
LikeLike
Yes Natasha, it certainly is a welcome change of determinations in such cases. I’d think the key interest would be in the psychologist’s report if it was available for Forensic Appraisal Review by an expert psychologist, as there appear to be some worrying features regarding opinions which are not based on the generally accepted principles and practices of the relevant professional community. Psychologists do not have the powers nor the expertise to investigate allegations of child abuse or domestic violence, so the entire report should have been rejected as inadmissible to the proceedings. The psychologist seems to have stepped well outside their area of professional expertise and the Daubert & Merrill principles should have been applied. It is a worry that so many lawyers are not challenging the choice of expert witnesses on those grounds, especially in the light of the research which so decisively criticised them.
If there are any concerns regarding an expert witness report then lawyers should immediately seek leave for a Forensic Appraisal Review and should challenge the competence of the witness to give expert testimony in accordance with the Daubert Rules. Judges tend to favour the engagement of certain `Experts’ and such decisions are frequently made on other than sensible and justifiable grounds. I thought everyone had learned the lessons of the Sally Clarke/ Angela Cannings tragedies in regard to expert witness testimony.
LikeLike
The mothers I mentioned earlier were threatened with jail(and some were jailed) if they sent an email or xmas card to their children !Such cruelty in the uk ? Hard to believe but it happens only too frequently.No judge should have the power to exclude indirect contact between parent and child unless the parent has already been convicted of a serious crime against a child or children.
LikeLike
I received this just now and though it would be improved by deleting the words “perverse”,”corrupt” and wicked ” the upshot is still a disgrace to British Justice since this mother has never harmed her children or anyone else !
Announcement: The perverse and utterly corrupt judgment has been given, which I have received today, and will be read out by the wicked judge at the hearing on Thursday; allowing the fraudulent S34 order prohibiting contact between mother and children to be finalised- bringing a 11 year uphill battle for justice to an end in the family courts.
[content removed]
———-
LikeLike
Christopher Booker placed his finger right on the practices in Family Courts which are of most concern when he stated (Daily Mail – 12 April 2013).
“Instead, the social workers cite vague reasons based on opinion rather than testable evidence — they use terms such as ‘emotional abuse’ the use of which has soared by 70 per cent.
In many cases the social workers don’t even need to produce evidence, only their personal view that a child might be ‘at risk of emotional harm’.
Once the social workers have made their decision, children and parents find themselves caught up in a shadowy system which seems rigged against them.
The social workers hire ‘experts’, such as psychologists, who earn thousands of pounds writing reports which appear to confirm the case planned for the courts. The reports can contain woolly allegations, such as that a mother might suffer from a ‘borderline personality disorder’. (Which of us could not have that charge levelled against them?)
Far too often the parents aren’t allowed to challenge the reports in court — even though the ‘experts’, rather than practising in clinics and seeing patients, may earn all their living from writing such reports, and endorsing what the social workers want them to say.
Judges are then presented with allegations made against the parents based on no more than the wildest hearsay. Such allegations elsewhere in our legal system would instantly be ruled inadmissible. But because of the secrecy of the family courts system, the parents are not permitted to even question these claims and the media is denied the opportunity to present them for scrutiny.”
In effect the system is morally corrupt and heavily weighted against parents, and objectivity, impartiality, and even-handedness are the first sacrifices to the pre-determined intentions of social workers. In response to such allegations, social workers always cite cases such as Baby P, Victoria Climbie’ etc, but fail to add that such cases occurred largely due to social worker negligence and incompetence.
LikeLike