One of our greatest bug bears about the family justice system is the quality of evidence that comes before a court. That evidence is used to make some of the most dramatic decisions any human being might face in their lifetime and can lead to the removal of children from their family.
The veracity of that evidence then, must be of the highest calibre. Too often though, this is not the case and there is an entrenched and persistent culture inside the system which allows this exceptionally important aspect of child welfare to go awry.
Wonderful news then, that judges across the country including Mrs Justice Pauffley are making a stand against shabby procedure and less than satisfactory evidence. The latest judge to get tough on slack social work is Mr Justice Treacy, who recently ruled that a decision to remove a child from her mother was unlawful. There was simply not enough evidence, and an active decision on the Local Authority’s part not to consult with all the relevant parties. As is often the case, willful fabrication of facts to see the removal through was also part of the debacle.
For his courage and determination to ensure that good law is applied and followed, we make Mr Justice Treacy our Judge of the Week. We doff our hat to you.
Big hat tip to Alison Stevens over at PAIN for sharing this story on Google+, where we found it.
Researching Reform 
It is always encouraging to hear of Judges making a stand against shabby procedure and less than satisfactory evidence, presented by those upon whom they are supposed to rely for probity and fact, concerning children’s welfare.
One of the largest employers of ‘social workers’ is CAFCASS – and their training material does not even withstand cursory analysis. They remain at liberty to make life changing recommendations about children in separating families without any guidelines as to what the ‘norms’ of parenting time might be, and have resisted all attempts to install such guidelines and training material for almost two decades. Parental alienation is rarely considered, thus, such reports often reward the actions of an abuser.
The same deficiencies in matters of contact are doubtless mirrored in matters of care.
It is entirely right that Judges should question reports consisting of statements that are untrue, inaccurate or otherwise misleading. Litigants need to step up in this regard (or their legal representatives), by presenting the facts as they are known, rather than as they are imagined to be. Also, I profoundly believe that their should be tough penalties brought in for ‘social workers’ who lay false or misleading information before the Court.
When making life changing decisions about children, in challenging what might at best be deemed ‘less than satisfactory evidence’ the Judiciary are – in many if not most cases – rescuing children’s futures!
Kenneth Lane
Contact Matters
http://www.contactmatters.co.uk
LikeLike
Thank you, Kenneth. Just so you know, your website comes up automatically in the URL box…. 🙂
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Isn’t it a shame that we pounce on a case where the child goes home applauding the judge who is simply doing their job! It highlights the fact that children rarely do return home and judges were “in cahoots” with the social workers as we all knew but it took Judge Pauffley to publicly out the practice. I hope they all got their knuckles rapped by Sir Mumby and I hope this will mean the pendulum will swing back in favour of families.
I’m not sure how long the existing trend can go on. As more and more of the general public know what really happens there will be an ever growing body that will force the changes in government. There is not an infinite stream of adopters or fosterers, as the USA are finding out. They are now keeping the children with the parents as there is no where else. Why could they not do that in the first place!
In the meantime what will it take for the Judges to realise that a child really does fair better at home than in foster care or adoption in most cases?
LikeLike