Here at Researching Reform, we make no secret of the fact that we have double standards – when it comes to the relative responsibilities of professionals versus parents inside the family justice system. Professionals have a duty to carry out their work with competence, and parents and children going through the system rely on their expertise to navigate the process. That is why Sir James Munby’s latest statement on shoddy social work makes him our hero this week.
In a recent case, which Sir Munby, the President of the Family Division, presided, two social workers from Bristol failed to tell parents whose children were being adopted , why their children were being taken from them, despite a court order specifying this needed to be done (and what an indictment on the system that we even need such a court order in instances like these).
To make matters worse, the parents did not find out the reasons for the removal of their children until 45 minutes before the adoption order, we presume, was due to be finalised, giving the parents no chance at all of mounting a challenge. For those of us who work inside the system on a daily basis, this scenario will not seem unusual – we cannot count the myriad times this sort of thing has happened to parents and children we assist as they go through the process. And it’s all part of the game that’s played in court – merely viewed as “strategy” most of the time, the culture inside the system has become so sick, that our very own President had to issue a court order, clearly, to enforce the correct procedures for the adoption process – social workers are required to tell parents why their children are being removed from them, in a timely fashion.
Sir Munby goes on to criticise the Bristol social workers in a searing attack, referring to their actions as, ‘deplorable’ and ‘symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in family courts’.
The President then went on to say that such action in future could lead to consequences for social workers, which has been interpreted by some to mean the possibility of imprisonment.
For his continuous courage as he faces an uphill struggle to battle the inadequacies of the system, for his insight and understanding, and his willingness to understand the impact that poor practice has on families and parents, and for being resolute in eradicating incompetence and lethargy inside the family justice system,we make Sir James Munby, our Judge of the Week.
Researching Reform 
I’m also over the moon about this judgement, Natasha!
There’s also another one which is relevant: http://news.uk.msn.com/mp-condemns-secret-justice.
My question to your admirable legal and literary mind is: can you see how this Apostolic Letter applies to the UK?
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio_20130711_organi-giudiziari_en.html
LikeLike
Thank you for your post and the links, Sabine. To my mind, whilst the letter touches on difficulties across the globe, I think it pertains more to the Church’s desire to increase its exercise of powers and to protect its interests.
I’m glad you find the judgement encouraging. I’m enjoying Munby’s stance on improving the system and hope he is joined by others looking to make it a top notch place where families feel safe and can seek refuge, rather than fearing the outcome of reliance on a system which is apathetic.
LikeLike
Interesting perception and interpretation, Natasha! Thank You!
LikeLike
I am more than surprised with Sir Mumby. He must have learned the truth since 2008 then, when we showed him all the proof of corrupt social workers.etc.Lady Justice Macur was wide awake to the goings on and the use of the Rhetoric case tactics used to secure a child for the adoption/fostering business.LJ Keane is also wide awake to the criminal actions of some social workers, guardians, etc.
Dr Wrennell wrote a fine article re Trojan Horse method after we spoke to Sir Mumby , LJ Thorpe and LJ Wall.
LikeLike
So what would happen now ? if a child was removed a few years ago even though there was a refusal of ICO ? and the social workers said they did not have to comply with the order from LJ Holman.The child is adopted supposedly- but no paper trail as no ICO.
I would love your opinion on this one.
LikeLike
Hi Catherine, Thank you for your posts. I think we’d need to see the judgment before being able to have a think about what’s really going on here. There just isn’t enough detail available at the moment.
LikeLike
Actions speak louder than words!
I have yet to see UK family court advocates or social workers go to jail despite the way they conduct themselves. If anyone knows of any cases I will stand corrected. I did recently see an article of a Barrister jailed for Fraud but that had nothing to do with family court.
I hope you are right Natasha that good changes for families are coming. They are a long time coming but I hope it’s not all smoke and mirrors to fool the public that there are positive changes afoot. When Parliament was last dealing with the Adoption Bill they called in Prof. John Treiseliotis as a witness. I won’t go into all his credentials, suffice to say he had then researched children for 55 years. He was pro access to Adoption records when everyone else was saying Pandoras Box would be open if it were allowed.
He spoke of research that looked at Adoption from the perspective of 3 parties. The Adopted, the Adoptees and the Birth Parents. He pointed out that “Birth parents CANNOT put the episode behind them – it has been very traumatic & very difficult, and they are haunted by continued guilt. Many of them have mental problems as a result. They are worried whether the child is doing well or not. The adoptees mostly also had mental heath issues, identity issues and esteem issues.” So despite many, many research studies over the past years, in many different countries, all saying adoption is not good for the child or parents, in fact for the most part its detrimental, think primal wound of the child and despite the backlashes and apologies to those adopted and their mothers, think Australia’s empty cradles. The Children & Families Bill was the opportunity to ban adoption but instead the UK Government has positively promoted it!
When I see the changes rather than hear changes are coming then I will applaud those responsible. I hope its Mumby, he has a kindly face, reminds me of an uncle of mine. He appears to want to make those changes that are so neccessary and has the clout to make it happen. I hope they come soon.
LikeLike
Can you provide a link to the actual judgement you refer to please
God bless, Roger
*******************************************
LikeLike
Hi Roger, there isn’t one available at the moment.
LikeLike
At last, a senior Judge gets real! His comments are long overdue but still very welcome and gives hope to those who have been campaigning for many years for changes to the family court system. I would sound a note of caution, though. Munby jailed a friend of mine, [content removed], some years ago for trying to maintain contact with his three daughters against the rulings of social workers and CAFCASS officers. The case was only resolved when the daughters moved in with him and threatened to run away if they were forced to return to the mother and her new, abusive partner. ([content removed] wrote about his ordeals in his book [content removed]). Sir James may have had a Damascene conversion since then, it certainly appears so and we hope so, let’s hope his rulings are taken on board. I particularly liked his threat to jail social workers who ignored court orders. Bring it on!!
LikeLike
Hi Roger, thanks for your post. Forgive me, but I’ve had to edit it for legal reasons. As you know, talking about cases involving children is regulated and as I don’t know whether the case is still live or not, or whether there are any additional restrictions in place, I have had to remove names, and other content which could identify the girls.
I’m hopeful Munby will be persistent. Let’s see…
LikeLike
Hi Natasha,
Sorry to be so long in replying.
I quite understand why you thought it advisable not to print details of my friend, but his case is long closed; it did so when the girls moved in with him. He wrote his book, still in print and available to the public, naming all names including his daughter’s, who are now, I believe, all over eighteen. The eldest daughter, Lisa, wrote a chapter in the book. Well worth a read.
Roger
LikeLike
Hi Roger, thank you for letting me know, much appreciated.
LikeLike
Pingback: THE GOVERNMENT wants to see families being supported to stay together | Voluntary Public Interest Advocacy
Pingback: BELINDA’s Battle for Britain’s Children: today at Courts 43 and 46 in the Strand | Punishment without Crime - Bereavement without Death
I will nominate the “judges to avoid”.There are two who at the moment who dead heat for first place.
I give you Mr Justice Mostyn and Mrs Justice Parker !! No improper asociation is implied by the propinquity of their titles on this comment.!
Do other readers have any nominations ?
LikeLike
I would like to name District Judge [Name Withheld]. His thought processes throughout care proceedings show his bias. He defended social workers lies to paint a damming picture when the evidence was found not to be collaborated by another social worker called as a witness. He puts one family witness on trial unbeknownst to them admitting that in court. He stated one family member must be malicious or delusional when evidence pointed to another smear campaign by the social worker against the family member accusing him (wrongly) of being a schedule 1 offender on contact notes! An apology came from the LA after the court hearing! This is a judge who had already made up his mind before the case had started. At the end of the case perfectly normal people had been maligned and had 10 reasons why they should not look after the children.He congratulated the Cafcass Guardian for her efforts in making a report against the grandparents despite her not speaking to them. The experts involved, a psychologist, lied too but admitted there were no mental health issues or personality disorders on the grandparents but tried to evoke a predisposition to depression due to a prescription in 1989! Shame on him for splitting the children up to suit age differences not their needs and placing them with strangers.
I find it extraordinary that a Judge cannot tell there is something very wrong when the professionals are all singing off the same hymn sheet! Judge [Name Withheld] was wrong when he stated there was no conspiracy when it was clear there was. Its as if the focus is on making the family look as bad as possible to justify removing the children rather than a more even handed approach that Judges are supposed to exercise. Until Judges question what they hear rather than accept social workers opinions they are not fit to be a Judge. If their own lives were under the microscope one wonders how they would be seen by someone using the same template as them! To err is to be human and Judgement should be tempered with compassion. No family ever escapes some trauma in their lives at one time or another and it is shameful that this aspect is exploited and blown out of proportion by social workers and the family courts. The bias against families is illustrated by the care orders rejected by Judges. A pitiful 27 out of 10,000 in 2007 and 22 out of 10,000 in 2011! The law of averages would show a higher rate if the courts were not biased!
LikeLike
Your well informed comment is extraordinarily, well put together and is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yes your conclusion speaks volumes that it is so obvious that something truly foul is taking place, those figures you quote should make the judges hang their heads in shame as well as our ignorant and blind members of Parliament who all seem to be far to busy looking the other way and willingly at that! If only they would have the courage to speak out against the obvious injustices taking place to far to many innocent parents whose only failing is that they are human and just as imperfect as anyone of us. My heart bleeds daily as I see so many parents losing their kids, and I tell you in all honesty most of them are innocent, I have met many. How I despair at my own wicked and unfair country,the UK, “the country that steals its own children”. God forgive these evil judges, but I assure you I never shall.
LikeLike
For those wishing to engage in Forced Adoption’s query:
1. No facts of cases may be used in conjunction with names used (this also means that no one can write two or more posts just with a view to separating facts and names of judges – I know you lot :)) and;
2. Judges names may be added on their own in a single post, as an indication of judges whom you feel are not competent.
Thank you….
LikeLike
Pingback: Judge of the Week: Sir James Munby | wakemanclare
Pingback: Council To Complain After Judge Calls Its Social Workers Nazis. | Researching Reform