The Buzz

07 Monday Oct 2013

It seems like the net is just teeming with family focused stories, so today’s Buzz is a little chunkier than usual, but worth a big bite:

Domestic Abuse Victims should be able to keep their addresses private – one woman’s unusual experience in the justice system could be more common than we think
Legal Aid Consultation Deadline Extended – You now have until 1st November
Family Mediation Bombs – we hate to say we told you so, it’s terribly inelegant, but there you are.
More Support Needed for Children in Court – How about a system that doesn’t traumatise them and make them feel like second class citizens?
Japanese Divorce Law – an interesting case study
Divorce Cakes in Croatia – bitter-sweet treats work, well, a treat.

Children and Families Bill – Care Leavers’ Access to Personal Information

07 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by Natasha in Children, Family Law, Update

≈ Leave a comment

It’s not often we get to say that we feel legislators put their heart and soul into drafting new regulations, but you’ll find very little sawdust and even less apathy in the way the Lords are passionately going about proposing thoughtful, exciting and sometimes fiendishly clever new amendments for this Bill.

There are a lot of interesting suggestions in this particular update, but by far one of our favourites comes from Baronesses Young and Massey and the Earl of Listowel, who wish to include a new clause about care leavers’ access to personal information.

It is a truly bold effort at ensuring that care leavers are able to acquire their records without having to fight for what can sometimes be a great many years to get hold of them, by placing a definite and clear duty on local authorities to make sure they not only provide that information in a timely manner, but do so with reasonable support. This support ranges from general advice about the procurement process, to counselling for those who would like it, during and after the retrieval (procurement) process.

Perhaps most importantly, the proposed provision sets out by making it clear that local authorities and voluntary organisations who look after or provide accommodation for a child or young person have a duty to maintain these records as prescribed by current regulations.

This update is well worth a read: for its passion, its heart and its genuine care.

The United Kingdom Parliament Children and Families Bill 2012-13 to 2013-14 Update

Question It!

07 Monday Oct 2013

Posted by Natasha in Question It

≈ 1 Comment

It’s hard to believe that yet another Monday has rolled around, and that we are so close to the end of 2013, but a cup of tea, a digestive and some mulling might stave off the impending start of next week.

Our question this week focuses on child abuse on-line, in the form of child abuse images and paedophiles who prowl the internet looking for children to target and to abuse in the real world, both on and off the web.

With the recent news that British children are particularly vulnerable to being exploited via the internet, the government has begun to place pressure on internet service providers and other web-based companies to help tackle the problem, resulting in companies like Google devising new ways to track and tag child abuse images and even setting up a £1.3m fund for organisations who offer effective tools to do the same.

Companies who offer internet services are also joining forces to fight on-line child abuse, like Sky, Virgin and TalkTalk, who are shortly going to be introducing a new alarm system which will be triggered every time someone accesses child abuse imagery on the net.

But one company which feels more reluctant about engaging in on-line child protection are Twitter, who despite being a member of the Internet Watch Foundation, and who will shortly be issuing an estimated $1.1billion flotation on the stock market of its own shares, feel they are only prepared to offer £5,000 towards tackling the issue.

So, our question to you this week is, this: do social media sites like Twitter have a duty to engage in the fight against on-line child abuse images or does this take the duty too far, arguably encompassing all on-line companies and individuals who host third-party images on their sites?