The BBC’s Panorama programme this week investigating the quality of expert evidence in the family courts has got everybody rather flustered.
The public have by and large expressed anger and sadness at the way the system functions. One politician in particular, used the programme to make a stark point about the alternatives to facing the family courts and social workers all over the land cupped their heads in dismay at yet more disparaging comment on their sector.
John Hemming MP’s statement on Panorama this week that parents who felt unfairly treated by the family justice system should flee the country with their children has caused outrage. Again.
Lawyers continue to relish the chance to ridicule Hemming’s simplistic sound bites, and this comment was no exception. Alex Verdan QC, a family law barrister and Head of a set of Chambers took to Twitter on Monday as the programme was airing:
alex verdan @alexverdan Shocking ill-informed statements @bbcone Panorama, I Want My Baby Back, Interview with John Hemming MP http://bbc.in/1aju7Fz
Julia Thackray, also a family barrister, tweeted:
Julia Thackray @realfamilylaw So John Hemming MP hasn’t heard of Hague Convention re child abduction? recommending parents flee country??.
And it wasn’t just lawyers reacting to the ‘advice’ Hemming offered. One social worker has now written an open letter to Hemming, asking him why he felt the need to criticise social work and the system and asking him whether he understands the effect his comments are having on her sector. In short, she accuses John Hemming of undermining social work and the people who practice it.
The trouble is, having worked with John Hemming for two years, I understand exactly where he’s coming from and why he says the things he does. The way he expresses himself though, is a bit of a problem.
In person Hemming is highly articulate, intelligent and fully cognisant of the nuances inside the system. He understands there are good people who do good work and that professionals aren’t bad by virtue of their profession, but by their practice. Spend a few minutes talking with this man and you realise something: he is a fountain of knowledge on both the legal and policy driven aspects of the family justice system. And for the duration of the time that I worked with him, he did everything by the book.
What comes across though, is a man who seems to advocate the protection of child abusers and has very little respect for the law. Having been kicked off MumsNet this month for outing a couple of mothers who had contacted him for help in private and uploading confidential documents relating to the now infamous case of the Italian mother who was forced to have a C-Section, anyone would be forgiven for thinking Hemming hasn’t a clue.
And in the world of PR, that may very well be the case. Fishing around forums like NetMums to garner more votes and issuing irrational sounding and sensational statements to get the press to focus on issues is a dangerous business and one which requires finesse. Having been banned from one of the UK’s largest parent focused forums and causing yet more anger within the family justice system, Hemming’s kudos has taken a severe hit. Much of what he says is now largely ignored, after it is met with an initial flurry of fury.
And that’s a shame. But everyone is missing the point.
This is not about social work, or politics. This is about children. As the angry social worker writes her open letter to John Hemming, she focuses on her own pain and frustration at being denigrated. It’s personal for her. In her letter, Esther Clarke tells John Hemming, “you have in one interview utterly undermined our work and purpose.”
But what about her role in this scenario? Social work has been under immense scrutiny for its poor practice and its lack of focus on child welfare. Countless news items, reports and research all indicate that social work has to a great extent undermined itself, with some mitigation relating to the lack of resources it currently suffers with.
Yet how refreshing it would have been had Esther written something different, had she acknowledged the problems and the errors and with dignity, focused on the potential damage statements like John’s could do, to vulnerable children involved.
And how insightful it would have been, had John chosen to explain that for many parents, the reality today is that poorly trained, overworked, understaffed social work teams are not able to deliver the kind of service that these families, these children deserve and that for many who are wrongly accused of child abuse, fleeing is the only option.
In a race to pass the buck, the system has consistently put baby in the corner. And despite the welcome news that the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment in which it asserts that children’s mindsets should be considered in cross border custody battles, it seems we still have a long way to go before we become a truly child-centered nation.
Researching Reform 
The reason that British citizens emigrated in large numbers to North America and other lands in the two preceding centuries was because they sought a better life in other countries. It is therefore perfectly logical and respectable that parents whose children are threatened by fostercare or forced adoption should do the same;ie seek countries with a fairer judicial system and more humane social services.
As long as they decide to leave while they are still legally entitled to do so why should they not go and why criticise John Hemming for advising them to do so?
LikeLike
Hi FA, although this is in some ways a side issue, some parents who flee are required to stay in the country whilst social services are investigating, and some flee minus a parent which means that abduction comes into play and that is of course considered criminal. I’m not passing a judgement on that, just highlighting the point.
For what it’s worth, I would not think ill of any man or woman who had been wrongly accused of child abuse and who then fled the country with their children, but I do think John should choose his words more carefully, not because I disagree with his view on this, but because his is a lone voice in parliament and it needs to be protected. He’s a bit silly sometimes.
LikeLike
Social workers! Foisted with their own petards!
My feeling is they need a different role as its clear the one they have does not work, for them or the families involved and least of all the children! Family preservation! Now that would be novel!
LikeLike
I’d really like to see the sector get serious. That’s my feeling.
LikeLike
“She focuses on her own pain and frustration at being denigrated. It’s personal for her.”
This really is the nub of it, isn’t it? So few people in any context are capable of responding to criticism without becoming fiercely defensive. A well made criticism, though, is the best stimulus to enable me to achieve the best I am capable of. A good critic is quite possibly my best friend. However, in order that my criticisms are heard receptively, I do actually have to take pains to present them in a way which does not receive a knee jerk hostile response, and that is exceptionally difficult to achieve.
LikeLike
It’s such an emotive area, I think everyone feels constantly on edge about their place in it. That diplomacy you mention has to be at the heart of social work. Horribly hard to pull off, but vital for all.
LikeLike
This should not be a battle between John Hemming and social workers – it is the Faceless Ones in central government departments who are pulling everyone’s strings.
Government advisers who translate broad government policy into directives and dictats for social workers to follow are setting the rules and the procedures and practices. Yet those `Advisers’ ignore decades of psychological research into attachment of children to their natural parents and primary caregivers.
They ignore the successes of Family Preservation projects and the policies of other countries in maintaining natural family unity and especially in engaging the wider family in decision-making processes. Their simplistic minds are ‘Any hint of abuse, or even suspicion (however unfounded), or obtuse prediction of abuse, then the child must be removed forever”. They are consumed by their power to destroy families and engage in their social engineering experiments, which are closely akin to “Èugenics School of Thought’ or Mengele’s experimentations in their complete absence of empathy and compassion for their victims.
They are masters at changing the lexicon with amendments to words such as biological parent/ natural parent, and psychological parent for adoptive parent. Children ebcome mere commodities to be advertised in the media like puppies or other domestic pets.
These are the people who are pulling everyone’s strings yet are never answerable and accountable for the harms they do.
LikeLike
Too much law and politics, and not enough tangible action, is my thought in 2014.
LikeLike
I think you touch on a nerve with the open letter, again and again it seems almost impossible for social workers to even admit, to the tiniest degree, that they were at fault.
I am reminded of this when the press statements were given by the various agencies over Ian Huntley, the police, education, health all admitted their failings, social services who were actually the primary agency and record keeper, stood there and shamelessly pointed fingers and accepted no responsibility despite being record keepers for much of the register of known offenders.
Sadly the Panorama programme, whilst good, yet again failed to address the wider margin, the public are left with a feeling these are isolated cases, not the norm, not what many, many families, tens of thousands of families in the last two decades who have suffered.
Yet it highlights, as does the recent news coverage, to more distant news coverage that social services, child protection, is just NOT fit for purpose and social workers are failing children continually by their strange and weird attitudes towards families, that many see abuse regardless of reason or cause, that many have criminal records, are drug abusers, have mental health issues and in some cases e.g. the team leader for Victoria Climbie, child protection concerns, are we to continually gloss over that one aspect that the Haringey manager responsible for children had supervision orders placed on her?
The needs of the child do not now or ever abrogate the rights of others, a human right is a human right, the child is entitled to be with their family and should be with their family unless clear evidence says otherwise, it again begs the question that perhaps the police are better equipped to assess first encounters, that the police should be given primary control as they tend to be better at being objective and open minded, they have set routines to use to determine the facts and able to provide a much better presentation of evidence to a court, this of course isn’t to say there isn’t problems with the police but many a police officer out there has been shocked at the barbarity that British social workers inflict on parents.
We need not one programme here or there but a dedicated investigation, because the BBC has now done this, it is unlikely that we will see anything for some time as public interest will be seen as sated, I am hoping “M” will still strive to get it into the media her way.
As for me, I am writing a book of the 16 odd years of terror inflicted on my family and myself, I’m not going to pull my punches and three SSD’s are going to find themselves in the dock over some serious malpractice, I have been told by journalists that whilst our story is pretty horrific, that it is so huge and so diverse, it simply is too big for the newspapers to take on.
All the best folks, keep on in there, keep your head high and don’t abandon the fight.
LikeLike
Good luck with your book, AG. If you don’t mind keeping me posted it would be great to hear how it goes.
LikeLike
Natasha – having read your comments – i must say that John hemmings gave me the advice to flee the country to protect my then unborn son from being taken, It was advice i could not take as it would have meant both giving up on my Step children who had been taken into care, wrongly and giving up trying to get them returned on what was false allegations. It was also breaking the law – that i have never done. My then answer to John Hemmings and his fellow MP Mike Hancock, was that they as MP’s should be making and taking action to see truth and honesty prevailing in the family Justice system and transparency in the family courts. Mike Hancock later advised you can not win as the LA are too powerful. Clearly even MP’s will likely believe the Family Court system is right. If they had ever been involved withy the system they would more likely favour the Family. Sadly not human nature.
Sadly as you know, even though I could prove wrong doings of two Social Workers and the City Council Solicitor that they did pervert the course of Justice, The Family Courts refused to correct wrong doings or overturn the Ill Judgement of the Local family Court that dances to the tune of the Local Authority in Portsmouth.
New evidence came to light but the courts to and including High Court via appeals refused to over turn or be able under family Law to over turn the judgement made prior to my sons birth. [F] would be at home now if honesty had prevailed and Justice by right and mercy had been honestly taken. My son now adopted – falsely & wrongly – I am told is doing well, yet the system continues to abuse us and fails in communication on yearly contact letter exchange, even refuses a christmas and birthday card or exchange of photo’s – the LA still believes that we are attacking them – when clearly no individual family can get justice and fight the might of a LA or the system on wrong doings.
Sadly the Police or IPCC [Force solicitor implicated] are not willing to act when clearly it can be proved a criminal offence of Perverting the course of Justice. I therefore fully understand the MP’s advice in flee the country – but Social Services and the system will never let go once they have taken action even when wrong. The Scars will remain – the frustration of the wrong doers will continue to do wrong doing and any family is fighting an impossible task as over 90% of children taken never are returned. Yet clearly the Social workers continue to get it wrong – both like the BabY P case and other such cases and also remove too many children from good caring homes without giving adequate justice to those that are innocent – even when the Judge says that parenting is not the issue – its about the LA being determined to get its wicked way at whatever the cost – even when clearly they are wrong and incapable of truth or adequate system or people capable of working with interests of families as a whole. Destroy and divide is the mantra – self protecting and self serving – hence the repose from SW’s in the system, along with unfairness to a step father unable to get adequate legal aid support to fight what is openly described and worse than a hanging offence in this country. The family Justice system is unfair and corrupt and self protecting. Your guilty of being there and the system based upon balance of probabilities will always go against family. In Crown Court – new evidence came to light -refused by the the family courts, but as the Police reports concluded in its reviews – this new evidence was instrumental in clearing me of wrong doing – yet put the two social Workers and LA Solicitor in the frame – did any one care to take action – no not a Jot. Yet these three are still practicing and one now works for cafcass – therefore the system does not rid its self of wrong doers – actually promotes the wrong doing.Rewarding Social workers that lie and mislead courts to protect there system favouring wrong doing. My case within the High Courts are in the public domain – the then head of family Courts refferred to my case in seminairs – yet failed to correct injustice. The current head of the family Courts gave me nice words but was also unable under law to correct the injustice. sadly nothing has changed except a family destroyed and a child lost to forced adoption. It never leaves you the agony of our plight. Who cares – no one.Anything done – nothing.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment, Stephen.
LikeLike
Sad – nothing changes as sound bites in these areas in the System and political arena does not change – like yourself we can not be counted or allowed to be used in a Public open and transparent way. Like an earlier comment -News papers are not interested or able to deal with what becomes complicated – even when simple in first instance. Recall its me that sought help for a wayward step daughter fighting with her mother and police having to be called. I always believed honesty would eventually see Justice – as you know sadly that is not the case. Natasha – do you think any one is actually listening to you? or is it just those inflicted.
LikeLike
Hi Stephen, I can’t say whether on a broader scale anyone is listening to the thoughts on the blog, or taking what’s being said and using it to make things better, but I do get to speak with people in government and I am sometimes asked my opinion.
As part of that ongoing conversation, some peers and MPs ask me to update them on family law matters and to point out new developments on areas which need focusing on. Sometimes I’m asked to brief them, so that they can raise points in debate or bear things in mind when working on related business. In that way, it’s my job to give them a balanced, but realistic picture of what’s happening on the ground and how people are perceiving those movements.
All I can do is keep talking. And I will, as long as there’s some use for me inside the system.
LikeLike
Steven you are wrong . You would not be breaking the law to leave with a mother pregnant with your child (unless of course you were forbidden to do so by a judge for completely separate reasons).You also could have returned yourself to fight for your stepchildren in the uk courts as long as the new baby was kept well away from the uk !
It is also wrong to say they cannot be beaten.If you have a strong enough case you can win as countless letters of thanks (many on my forced-adoption site) have shown.I reckon on about 20% success as opposed to 0.25% (judicial stats) from legal aid lawyers !
Yes the courts are hopelessly biased and everything is against you,guilty until proved innocent,no witnesses allowed,no proper input in the choice of expert or instructions given ,etc etc
But keep fighting and you can still win !
LikeLike
Following adoption and the placement hearings along with my appeals and further appeals to IPCC – the law does not allow me any further avenues to fight on. I am sure if you was aware of my case and the position – like the Websters – we are at an end to being able to fight. My wife unwell and also accommadated – sees her children 3 times a year for an hour – unless like at christmas the SW rang and cancelled an hour before the contact meeting on grounds that weather was bad – ie raining – so cancelled contact.Being Stepfather excluded as no PR etc. so therefore run rough shod over a poor sole – who then ended up hospitalised over Xmas – for 5 days – stress induced etc – upset over not seeing her children.
I am afraid you have to live with hope that when F is 18 yrs he might seek us out – but really slim given that the Adopters do not know truth and SW’s feed on the frenzy of self protecting the injustice created.
If F knocks on my door – in 13yrs time – its not likely that I would rake over the injustice – i will just be pleased to know him and move forward. Where is the fight its pointless.
The point is that all these cases need to be picked up early. families need to be protected. At present the legal system believes that comprimise [standard solicitors mantra] with the SW’s is way forward – what ever the virtures of the case. The system looks to win at all costs as there is not a decent -no fault proceedure settlement in LA’s – the complaints system is self protecting – complain and suffer the consequences. I worked as a principle officer in the same LA that acted against me – knowing the system at LA’s from within actually counted against me – even the Psycho report recorded that my IQ was likely a factor in the LA not being able to work with me – as clearly he felt there was not an adequate level of staff capable of working with a father that new the system was failing me and my family. My ability and challenge to the system that was failing counted against me.
I was a father given unsupervised contact in the community for 2yrs 3hrs x 5 days a week – including at swimming pools etc – a score of 10 out of 10 for parenting – a good enough father – yet because i could not admit something i did not do – I agree with a judgement that was wrong on balance of probabilities – with no collaboration of any offence on medical grounds – was a potential risk – even though the psycho made the statement i was no more a risk to my son that 99.9% of population – that I could not work with LA – offered whatever was needed, could prove perverting the course of justice and also prove that what the Cafcass reported to a counselling service was untrue – still the judge would not take the risk of giving me the opportunity to care fro my son as a sole parent – having seperated from my wife to support the oppertunitity to care for my son.
You can only jump though the hoops if offered – The council leader and CS&S also admitted records had been not kept – or lost etc. Even though a Crown Judge found those papers when I was before the Crown court after the Family Court Judge had made an opposite decision – then later refused the new evidence; Without the Crown Court Judge reviewing the Social Workers files – we would not have known the corrupt practice and misleading with held evidence before the Family Court. – Yet would the local Judge accept or even review that evidence – no he refused to have it before him.
As I said to that same Judge – King Canute could not historically turn the tide – neither can a parent in a closed court process hell bent on protecting the LA wrong doings and the Judge having to admit he was wrong in first instance – when clearly an unfair and unsafe decision was made – when i had no benefit of legal support as as step father that he admitted sought the help of the LA in the first place. Clearly once you have met the system and its friable incapabilities the self protecting system kicks in and kicks the good parents into the fodder.A Barrister later admitted she would not risk her livelyhood – I dismissed her – the Judge then took a dim view and held that against me – has clearly she had reported her reasons for her dismissal. I am afraid that I believe I was right and do not regret my honesty – I do regret that the LA remains dishonest and continued thereafter to mislead enquiries by the police and the system just closes around- the Police then fail to act on grounds of not in public interest etc. Even later evidence proved conflicting reports by Poilce and SW’s et etc. Who cares no one. If I was Liverpool FC and 90 inflicted in 20 yrs someone might listen – but sadly not alone.
Without funds to fight and power – my support did its best but sadly we was not able to over turn matters – I suggest you review the W case history or see Problems in Portsmouth http://www.southernfamilyaid.com/portsmouth.htm
The independent observer in this case would believe there was a vested interest in the outcome of findings against the father when all these facts mentioned as being with-held were not in any single LA statement, chronology or any other document. There can be no explanation for this material not having been disclosed. The Law is well known and clear, see paras 153 to end of this High Court Judgement;
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2011/402.html
There is now no effective remedy available for the father and his wife, whose son is about to be adopted except this article and a hope public pressure and consciences will react. The Court of Appeal on 15 09 11 made it clear the Court is merely a procedural conveyor belt.
Portsmouth City Council these issues need to be remedied now as this is the last remedy available……any threat of libel will be rigorously defended. The facts speak for themselves and there is not one single effective remedy now other than public exposure. ECtHR will only give compensation. The Police will not alter an adoption even if persons are arrested.
Cllr Williams – letter before the High Court – on Appeal wrote
It is my firm belief that XXXXXX XXXXXX is one parent who has been deemed a ‘nuisance’ by daring to oppose. The case made again Mr XXXXXX has been managed to exclude key evidence in his favour in order for social services to get their way.
Over the 3 years of XXXXXX XXXXXX’s involvement with the social services, he has had no problems with contact centre staff, but in that period has only met Mr Chapman and Ms Clayton at contact twice throughout. I am led to believe that my involvement in his case is seen as an annoyance and an impediment rather than helpful because it poses a threat to their authority.
I am astonished that XXXXXX has been cited as not being able to cooperate with the local authority and even his seeking to engage me is being used as an example of that conclusion. From my experience, the argument is the other way around with social workers involved in the case choosing to be domineering and accusatory rather than seeking a conciliatory approach that would be in the best interests of all parties and, in particular, XXXXXX’s
son, XXXXXX.
Furthermore, it is the right of every citizen in our democracy to seek the support of their local politician (MP or councillor). To oppose this is a refutation of basic human rights. I am unconvinced with the honesty and openness of those
in the local authority that have been involved in Mr XXXXXX’s case.
It is my view that not only should XXXXXX XXXXXX be exonerated of any wrongdoing, he should also have his son returned to him and be allowed to raise the boy as any normal father would. The social services direction is not about acting in the best interests of the child. At best their conclusions are erroneous and at worst, irresponsibly arrogant.
Yours faithfully
COUNCILLOR JAMES WILLIAMS Nelson Ward
Matters are at an end – has anything been learnt by a system – or any adequate changes – NONE SADLY – no family is safe;
LikeLike
PS – Forced Adoption – Flo Bellone attended one hearing in the HIGH Court – she heard the injustice dished out by LJ Wilson – who also would not correct his own mistakes on 6th sept earlier on paper;
LikeLike
As a note – in law without PR – you can not fight for a step child – as a Step father. Once an appeal against an adoption order is lost – in law you are at an end. As teh programme indicated by the couple whose child had become adopted both the parents and Grandparents had ended all they could do and was like myself – a yearly letter – if your lucky from Adopters – this is also not compulsory on the adopters as I have found. Family Law is weighted against a family torn apart – be it right or wrong – Victorian times still exist in 2014 in Family justice. As I am sure your aware – Families are in the family court are basically guility unless they can prove or fight balance of probability arguments in there favour – sadly – a very dracionian position in law;
LikeLike
I should imagine John Hemmings is sick to death of trying to highlight problems and make changes to what is a defunct system. I don’t know how many years he, in his position as an MP, has attempted to give voice to the families wrongly accused and victims of that system. A lone voice in a topic that most MPs shy away from. Whilst some outsiders have given their support unstintingly not many of his fellow MPs have supported him and questioned if what is happening is right, they tend to follow like sheep, the herd mentality kicking in. If JH is a little too blunt at times who could blame him! There is change afoot as the public become more aware of what is happening to thousands of families. It would be good if more MPs supported him and changes will come quicker.
LikeLike
John Hemming has for years tried to bring change for the children he is just one voice in Parliament and with thousands of families contacting him also being a father he must realy hurt inside to know he can do very little to help families with nothing happening to bring change, I beleive what he said can only be the only way to help the families keep their children as I have said so many times there are no doors to open and since when is it breaking the law to abduct your own child just to keep it safe from being abused in a system that has been ALLOWED to go on for centry’s the governments know damn well that the corruption is with many of the social workers who steal the children for the big multibillion pound industries, no kids to sell business goes broke with more unemployment, who really gives a damn for the children if they did then kids would have their human rights and the right to speak no kids in the UK are safe and I agree with John Hemming because I also am sick of the sick people who know nothing of children and for those who supposidly do half of them have no children never been married learnt from books in universities get a degree and then its suffer little children come unto me.
Maggie
LikeLike
“Having been kicked off NetMums this month for outing a couple of mothers who had contacted him for help in private”
Is this so? I believe one of the reasons was this:
“Mr Hemming also incurred the wrath of Mumsnet after posting a link to the Twitter account of a user named ‘spero’ which identified her as family lawyer Sarah Phillimore”.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2532649/MP-John-Hemming-banned-Mumsnet-posting-Italian-woman-forced-courts-caesarean.html#ixzz2qaIOJ0Bx
And if you google “spero phillimore site:mumsnet.com”, you’ll see that Spero outed herself several times before the row (actually named herself and even provided her email on several occasions).
And even if he “outed” Pacchieri (did he?), it would have happened without him anyway.
And the biggest problem with social services in UK, I think, is that they don’t have much to show in spite of having been around for decades: I don’t hear much from happy contented care leavers; I don’t hear from happy “graduates” of forced closed adoption; I don’t hear from extended family members who approve of the way children of their relatives were handled. (I’m not saying this doesn’t happen, I’m just saying that you seldom, if at all, hears stories like this.) And as for the lawyers, I don’t hear much in the way of praise for them from mums, dads and extended family. Why?
LikeLike
The trouble is that most campaigners complain furiously about the system without saying what they would put in its place to deal with child abuse etc.
I propose a simple solution to 90% of the problems. PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME must be banned !
All child cruelty or neglect should be the affair of the police and judged in the criminal courts to criminal standards of proof.Social workers should be scrapped together with the family courts as in and before 1948 we were much better off without either of them !
LikeLike
I seem to remember that Hemming publicly advised families to flee the country “IN SOME CASES” (I don’t remember the exact wording, but it did not sound as blunt as it has been made out to be).
And I don’t think politely speaking to the people in power alone will bring about changes in this system. There are just too many vested interests plus general laziness to explore the issues plus unthinking acceptance of certain truths (such as the benefits of coercive social engineering, etc.). Pressure from below – this is what will make the tide turn. And Hemming talks to the people (mostly), not to his political peers. While the likes of Narey are in power, the political establishment will not listen to Hemming, no matter how cautiously he treads. IMHO
LikeLike
Isn’t the solution to this parental misery to revisit and redefine adoption. For instance; why make it irreversible ?; Why exclude the other parent – usually the father ? ; Why exlude the grandparents ?; Why make it permanent immediately; Why not have a probationary period ?; Why base the ‘child’s best interest’ criteria on faulty work done by Anna Freud ? ; The options are there if one looks for them.
LikeLike
Stop forced adoption altogether! Children are not chattels! If more emphasis was on family preservation there would be less children in care. Times scales are an invention of government, social services and the courts. More time not less should be given to investigate and/or support the family. These decisions don’t just affect children but they grow into adults. Unless the parents AND grandparents AND Any extended family have stated they don’t want the children they should not be adopted!
Psychiatrist’s have said it is very damaging to the child & the mother’s mental health and the child never quite meets the expectations of the adopter! Why are they listened to in court to remove a child but not when its something that goes against what the government want to do? I refer to the Primal Wound and the psychiatrists
brought in to discuss the Adoption Act at the Select Committee.
LikeLike
Just noticed that David Cameron PM has a whole board (35 pins) on Pinterest promoting adoption! You can see where his leanings are! I’m shocked! After all, this is supposed to be a Prime Minister!!!
LikeLike
That’s very strange indeed. Can you give us the link?!
LikeLike
http://www.pinterest.com/number10gov/national-adoption-week/
David Cameron PM Adoption Board.
LikeLike
Thanks D. Wow, the PR team really got this wrong. You just wouldn’t use Pinterest for something like this. Ew.
LikeLike
Well he is obviously `Common Purpose’ trained and this is a part of their agenda.
LikeLike
http://www.pinterest.com/number10gov/
David Cameron PM Official Pinterest Boards.
You will note he states he is the UK Prime Minister
LikeLike
Tacky at best!
LikeLike
Just to clarify – he was suspended from mumsnet for attempting to out three other people who weren’t me. And who didn’t want their details known.
I said then and I say now, I think this was a deliberate attempt to bully and intimidate people who didn’t agree with him.
He also posted the name of Allessandra Pacchieri’s baby, which is contrary to a Reporting Restrictions Order in the High Court and for which I have reported him to the Information Commisioner.
they are currently investigating.
LikeLike
Social workers have increasingly become the instruments of oppressive government policies and are now undoubtedly the government’s agents of social control and social engineering programmes. Voltaire wrote words to the effect that when the government become oppressive, then the people become cunning.
Increasing numbers of parents are having their children permanently removed from them for often spurious reasons and they are rendered legally defenceless by a collusive system, notable for its fabrications, embellishments, and distortions of evidence. Options of appeal and complaint are rendered ineffective by the colluding systems that make parents powerless and helpless. In effect the Family Court system is now a Star Chamber form of condemnation and execution.
Even in instances where parents may be experiencing difficulties in their relationships or are to an extent dysfunctional, they are given very little, if any, help and support to maintain their family and once their children are removed from them, they are given no opportunity to rehabiliate themselves and to have their children re-united with them. Extended family members who can help and support are routinely ignored and dismissed from the processes.
While the system continues to be so oppressive, then parents are presented with no alternative but to abscond with their children to evade the gargantuan monolith of the State and legal machinery which steals and devours their children.
The Family Court system has been brought into gross disrepute by its inherent unfairness and injustices, and although Justice Munby may be attempting some limited reforms, it will require root and branch re-organisations before justice can return to the Family Court system and its credibility and reputation are restored.
LikeLike
Changes in the family courts. Let’s get practical!
The only way that the truth will come out is for all parents who can prove that information for the court has been presented in such a way that has been distorted, fabricated, omitted etc and that social workers have lied in court and this resulted in your child being removed erroneously, is to send the information to your own MP and the Justice Minister Cris Grayling MP and the Children’s Minister Edward Timpson and John Hemmings MP so a record can be kept. Keep copies.
Whilst we know this happens unless there is proof, MPs do not belive the sensational reports in the papers, blogs etc and if they believe that it happens they believe it is on a very small scale! You have an opportunity to prove them wrong and push for positive changes in the family courts. Tell them directly what is wrong and what you think will improve the courts. Keep it as short as possible, do not write reams or they simply won’t read it or digest the salient points. They are busy people! Let us know what results you get! Your MPs are supposed to work for us! This is their chance!
LikeLike
Thanks for your comment, D.
LikeLike
Thank you Natasha for allowing my suggestion to be posted on your forum. I have been told by a changemaker in Parliament that changes can be made that would help families but to be successful there needs to be the proof, put in an unemotional, non sensational way.
LikeLike
Pleasure. Evidence is one of my biggest bug bears. It’s everything. But obstacles to getting it are many, including the availability of it, the willingness of parties to adduce it and the consistent efforts to conceal it.
LikeLike
These are the personal testimonies of your people whose lives were determined by the Family Courts in America. The same is happening in the Family Courts in the Uk and elsewhere.
In the first case of Jennifer Collins, she fled abroad with her mother and they were eventually granted asylum by the Netherlands government. She is now an advocate for other children and young people who are ordered to live with abusive and violent parents by the Family Courts. It has been reasonably estimated that there are 58,000 children and young people in America who are suffering continuing abuse following orders of the Family Courts.
For too long, Family Courts in the UK, America, and Australia have been ignoring and disregarding the vast volumes of research on domestic violence and child abuse, have been accepting discredited theories of PAS, and failing to act on the evidence presented on violence and child abuse in individual cases. Instead they have placed the rights of the violent offenders and abusers as of primary importance, and the safety and protection of children is given little consideration.
They appear to be unable to say to parents, “Your history of violence and abuse towards your former spouse and children are very clear and evident and in consequence you have forfeited your right to be involved any further in their lives.
LikeLike
Thank you for these links, R.
LikeLike
A picture is painted in court about you, your lifestyle, your behaviour that is akin or worse than Benefits Street! That is how you are being viewed! As a grandparent you are unlikely to get your grandchild/ren because if your child (mother or father) has issues they will say its because of you! The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree! The social workers and other professionals will be believed. Anything a social workers writes in their reports or says in court about you is their evidence and that is all they need! They don’t need proof and that needs to change! In court it is not what is the truth but how the case against you is presented and if /how your legal team counteracts their allegations. The problem with legal assistance in family court is they don’t win against the local authorities and there needs to be independent research into why not!
Right from the start, when allegations are made, before going to see a social worker you should be able to get legal advice and tape the conversations with social workers. If you go to a police station and charges are brought against you, you get legal representation, all conversations are taped, you write a statement and all parties sign it, why should it be any different if you go into social services when your children can be removed and your life can change radically? Everyone must press for these changes or nothing will change!
LikeLike
I read again and again that Hemming advocates that some parents should “flee”. There is a great deal wrong with Hemming, but untrue allegations that he has counselled flight are not honest. He has suggested that people “travel abroad” or “emigrate” but never flee. Leaving a country where justice is perverted and trials are held in secret using secret evidence and gagging orders in search of a better place is entirely different from fleeing, as a wanted criminal or otherwise.
There are plenty of bad things to say about John Hemming, but lying about what he has said is as dishonest as it gets.
LikeLike
If anyone were asked for advice from another person who claimed they had suffered inhumane and degrading treatment in their country of residence and had been unjustly treated, would they not advise them to seek refuge and asylum in another country?. There have been instances where parents have fled with their children to other countries because they had reasonable cause to believe their children and themselves had been treated in an inhumane and degrading manner in the form of physical, emotional, sexual and financial abuse and the Courts of that country have failed to provide adequate protection for them.
Some of those parents have eventually been apprehended and taken back under the heinous and draconian Hague Convention but others have been granted the asylum they sought and deserved e.g. American Holly Collins and her children who were granted asylum in Holland. (see book `No Way out but One’). So there are very strong moral and legal reasons to advise anyone in such circumstances to seek asylum abroad.
No one can have such arrogance as to believe that the British Courts are completely infallible and that injustices don’t occur. Judicial history over the last three decades has shown very significant numbers of injustices in the criminal courts, and highly significant numbers now appear to be occurring in the Family Courts. I would expect the numbers of parents fleeing abroad to seek asylum from Britain will be increasing as Child-Removal Services and Family Courts become increasingly oppressive and unjust.
LikeLike
Unusually I find myself in total agreement with Ragnvald – my advice would also be to flee and my opinion of the Family Court is that it is not fit for purpose. Where I diverge with her view is re: the Hague Convention, which has many shortcomings (see my article on it). The other problem is the difference in treatment between fathers and mothers when the ‘make off’ with the children. One is invariably cast as a kidnapper and the other merelyy ‘protecting’ her children.
LikeLike
MOTHER FACES 20 YEARS IN PRISON AFTER FLEEING WITH HER DAUGHTER 20 YEARS AGO. CURRENTLY AWAITING EXTRADITION TO AMERICA WHERE SHE WILL BE TRIED AND SENTENCED.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/today-tonight/lifestyle/article/-/21121486/world-exclusive-savanna/
LikeLike
R, you are quite right when you say no British court is infaliable and the problem remains that innocent people have been sent to prison and at a later stage they are exonerated and released. An example in criminal court, the people accused of the Guilford bombings. Evidence was withheld by the police, a miscarriage of justice! Its bad enough to be in prison but to spend 15 years in prison for something you didn’t do doesn’t bear thinking about and justice wasn’t corrected in time for the eldest Maguire who died in prison. Appeals happen all the time!
Someone involved in the family courts suggested that 1/3 of parents should not have had their children taken into care, 1/3 of parents needed support and 1/3 parents were definitely in the wrong! That suggests that 2/3rds of children in care should have remained at home, half of those needing some support. If that is correct, 60,000 odd kids are in care that shouldn’t be there!!!
LikeLike
Yes Dana, when the Blair government instigated this campaign to get children in State Care adopted in 1997, its major purpose was to dramatically reduce the numbers of children in State Care which at that time stood at approx. 48,000 children. Despite vast sums of government monies being ploughed into adoption services and changes in the law to make adoption quicker, there are now over 60,000 children in State Care – 25 per cent increase.
At what point does someone say, “This policy is not working and in fact it is making matters worse.”.
A definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly in the hope of obtaining a different outcome.
The present policy is madness and is a complete failure and its long overdue that it was abandoned.
LikeLike
Natasha- could you kindly correct. It was mumsnet and not netmums. Netmums would have respected Mr Hemmings transparency and the fact he does not swear.
However, Mr Hemming should be commended for being one of the 7 MP’s who are working fighting for an honest investigation into Westminster Child Abuse.
LikeLike
Hi Amber. Thank you for alerting me to the typo. I know John very well, and have worked with him for several years. I think he understands the issues very well, but I also think that his delivery is unfortunate and doesn’t help the broader public understand what’s happening. I note you’re a lay advisor. What’s your background for the work, Amber?
LikeLike
What an interesting blog. I write from Australia and I have recently become aware of the issue of closed family courts in the UK. A friend had her 2 babies removed and adopted and I have now read all her court transcripts. From where I live, the reasons why the babies were removed seems like social engineering and is very similar to the “stolen generation” in Australia. My friend essentially had her babies taken because she needed assistance, but my reading of the court documents tells me a great injustice was allowed to happen. My friend did not ever have unsupervised contact and the opinion of the experts were not based on any actual happening, but on how she as a mother “may” have parented-that there was a risk of emotional abuse. This is all so similar to what happened to the stolen generation, where the governments of the day considered the aboriginal “problem” could be “fixed” by taking children from poor and uneducated mothers. This attempt at social engineering did not work in Australia and I doubt it will work for the UK. Of course there will be instances where children cannot be left in the care of an abusive parent, but this is a long way from removing children and adopting them out because a parent is from a low socio-economic group.
LikeLike
Thank you, Erica. I’m sorry to hear about your friend. People from certain demographics are far more vulnerable to the abuses inside the system largely because their funds are limited, and they may feel intimidated by the system. Whilst the UK have seemed to move away from social engineering towards safeguarding, the reality is that engineering still takes place. It’s a very fine line between protection and perceived utopia and professionals who aren’t well trained and likely to have God complexes may blur that line.
LikeLike
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I must say that this experience of my friend has really shocked me; when I first learnt the details of my friend’s case(s) I felt I had fallen down the rabbit hole. I suppose I was also somewhat shocked that this happened in 21 century UK-but this possibly reflects my own idealized view of how British society is inherently “fair”. Strange to reflect that Orwell’s observation on the nature of equality can be applied to a liberal democratic society. I think the UK may still be very much a society organized on class, it is the only answer I have for the least able not being afforded the most help. In Australia such discrimination is based on race-Australia is a wonderful place (providing one is not indigenous); but even Aboriginals are no longer subject to such seemingly draconian social engineering. And yes, reading some reports does give one the impression that the educational levels of some of the social and health professionals are pretty ordinary.
LikeLike
We have laws in the UK and we rightly punish those who break the law ! Unfortunately we also punish those who do NOT break the law (Motherswho have their babies removed for risk of emotional abuse from a long departed bad tempered but physically harmless father for example) Makes the whole concept of passing laws a bit ridiculous don’t you think? John Hemming is both logical and correct in advising law abiding parents to flee to countries where you only get punished if you break the law unlike the UK where you get punished when you are perfectly law abiding !
As for the Hague convention ,most lawyers rest in blissful ignorance of the following case:-NEULINGER & SHURUK v SWITZERLAND
The Hague Convention demands that children be returned to or allowed to remain in the country where they are “habitually resident” .There are however important exceptions.
“Child objections
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.
Article 13(b)
… the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that … there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”
MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL :-The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights Decided that the BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD would be the deciding factor to determine whether that child could remain in Ireland. Previously the question concerned “habitual residence”.
NEULINGER & SHURUK v. SWITZERLAND
A Momentous and Disturbing Ruling in Europe on the Hague Abduction
LikeLike
Thank you FA.
LikeLike
I shed no tears for Esther Clarke. IMV a rocket up the behind of the corporate Social Services is well overdue. So if John Hemming “[has] in one interview utterly undermined our work and purpose,” then three cheers for that.
By contrast, Julia Thackray (@realfamilylaw) is either a sad or confused person. Everyone, even John Hemming has heard of the Hague Convention but what is Julia suggesting – that parents should not be free to flee a country to avoid child abduction by the state ?
Have parents lost all rights and are merely vassals of an increasingly feudal state’s apparatus ?
LikeLike
RE: NEULINGER & SHURUK v SWITZERLAND
That all very well, but when you’ve found a universally agreed definition of the ‘best interests of the child’, then drop me, and the rest of the world, a line.
LikeLike
Hitherto the parents were unable to argue the interests of the child at all as an argument in their favour.This case at least gives them a chance in Ireland or elsewhere to say that children would be better off with their own parent(s) than with unknown strangers in uk !
ian
LikeLike