President of the Family Division, James Munby delivered a speech at Families Need Fathers’ AGM last month, in which he referred to McKenzie Friends as a ‘problem’. He does back track and go on to praise lay advisors, but his choice of words given the delicate aspects involved is pretty poor.
This is what he says:
“A big problem in the family courts are, of course – I shouldn’t use the word problem … that gives completely the wrong impression. Another big issue is McKenzie Friends.”
But he does use the word problem. And it belies how he views lay advisors, whether informed by personal experience or prejudice. It’s also clear that he hasn’t read the latest reports on legal aid and McKenzie friends, which suggest that lay advisors are not hindering the process in any way.
The questions asked during the AGM are interesting, and the speech itself, though really nothing more than a light nod to shared parenting and a resume of Munby’s efforts, is worth reading too. We remain unconvinced by Munby’s attempts at being a judge of the people, but as long as he’s keeping the discussion of reform on the table, we’ll tolerate him.
The most important aspect of this is that he must ensure that the voice of the child is heard in court DIRECTLY and OPENLY and not by way of so called guardians such as CAFCASS who are too ready to accept the word of SW’s and ignore the wishes of the child. The rule of thumb seems to be that if the child wants to go home he/she is deemed not to be Gillick competent, yet when the child has been in care long enough for Stockholme Syndrome to sink in, the child is then deemed to be Gillick competent.
LikeLike
Thank you, Mike. I made a mistake about the interim report not being published (I was away at the time). You can access it here >>> http://www.jordanpublishing.co.uk/practice-areas/family/news_and_comment/interim-report-of-the-children-and-vulnerable-witnesses-working-group-31-july-2014#.VIWKpDGsWSp
LikeLike
Exactly Mike. That is the pattern.
My children asked to speak to the Judge and he was fine with it.
He agreed that the children should not be placed with their abuser, and then apologized stating He had to obey the social worker.Then the children were deemed too intelligent, too articulate and strong willed – so they were supposedly coached.
Then the threats from social worker to the children followed – locking them up till 18 and getting Electric Shock Therapy to burn out the memories of abuse- which they claimed never happened. Its insane reasoning.
As for being a McKenzie friend in front of Mumby- been there done that and I was horrified that he admitted to not having read one page of the bundles in front of him.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
I’m wary of Munby. He jailed my friend Mark Harris for waving at his children (who wanted him to wave) in 2001. I’ve been wondering if he’s had a Damascene conversion since then. . . . .mmm, maybe not. I understand that actually he has no power himself to open up the Family Courts. . . .is that correct?
LikeLike
Hi Roger, yes, that’s right. That power does not lie with the judiciary but the legislative, so he can’t make the legislation to open up the courts.
LikeLike
This is a further disconcerting development in this dysfunctional UK Family Court system.
Sir James Munby once said (apparently):
‘Only the death penalty is more drastic than removing a child from its parents forever’.
What is the ‘The Establishment’ doing to safeguard fair processes?
1. Prof Jane Ireland found in her study that 2/3 of Psychological Assessment Reports in Family Court settings were ‘Poor’ or ‘ Very Poor’ – Solution: Abolishment of experts – let even less qualified professionals make those judgements
2. Sites like http://www.forced-adoption.com laid bare how Solicitors are acting as ‘Hired Guns’ helping Councils win their trumped up cases – Solution: Abolish Legal Aid for the vulnerable mothers/fathers
3. Massive criticism of clandestine secrecy – Solution: ‘Let them have rulings’ but not the truth (e.g. how the proceedings have been ‘gamed’ by compromised professionals who are ‘game keeper’ and ‘poacher’ simultaneously)
4. McKenzie Friend’s are the last remaining defenders off the Human Right to raise a family without interference – Solution: Bad mouth them, and force them out of the courts by imposing ‘regulation’ that makes them less affordable and viable.
It took 2 generations for ‘abuse in care homes’ to come out.
What are we going to find out 2 generations from now?
Perhaps that Organised Abuse had moved into Foster Care and Adoption settings?
I am afraid we may never find out as ‘victim numbers’ will probably be never enough to convict those complicit!
How many Mandarins around Sir James Munby are in the pocket of the Adoption Industry, or even more sinister organisations (Elm Guest House in Barnes & VIP Westminster Paedophile Ring come to mind)?
LikeLike
Mumbys speech at the Fathers need Families AGM made all the right noises but didn’t give anything tangible. He says he will listen to anyone but has a deluge of letters written by parents but cannot do anything. He needs to put a stake in the ground and say this will happen or this, not be wishy washy! Everything should be done to support families before they end up in court because despite going through a painful court appearance its mostly a lost cause!
LikeLike
I was there and he did not say McKenzies were a problem. He said they were like everyone else, some quality and some poor. in that regard they were the same as everyone else. He took pride in telling us he rewrote the Presidents directions in 2010 for LJ Wall to allow much more freedom for McK’s. Unlike Wall in 2010 he did not defend all personnel in the system, he was very scathing about some of the professionals and that included Judges.
LikeLike
Hi Vincent, it says that he did on the FNF website, so I’m just lifting it off there. I’ve met Munby myself and spoken with him; I remain unconvinced by certain things but I’m glad he’s trying to open up the courts and make the process clearer.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLike
Hi Natasha
Alternatively, I think that the President may have simply been alluding to the concerns identified by Alistair MacDonald QC (pages 8 & 9) in his inaugural speech to the Bar Council.
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/media/314992/alistair_macdonald_inagural_bar_council_speech_081214.pdf
Others have also stated similar worries.
I could not agree more regarding the reforms that the president has ushered in. He has, in the space of just one year, done more to improve transparency than some of his predecessors did during their entire terms. That is true when considered both individually and collectively.
However there is one area in particular where, in the higher echelons of the family Justice System, the processes are almost entirely lacking in transparency. I refer to the procurement of reports that will later inform policy and debate under the umbrella of the Family Justice Board. Typically, it would appear that a concern is voiced, a body such as the Nuffield Foundation comes up with some funding, a report is commissioned, a report is published and people talk about it until the next issue arises when it’s time for this cycle to repeat itself.
I think that all our interests are best served (and children’s welfare is reaffirmed as paramount) when any procurement process, for work which will inform policy and public debate, involves a competition. Competition, through tendering and appraisal of submissions, ensures both value for money, diversity and the highest standards of reporting and academic rigour. The expertise and knowledge needed are not exactly thin on the ground.
Why does this not happen as a matter of course?
I can guess, but why should anyone need to?
LikeLike
Pingback: TOWARDS 2015 as a year of #breakthrough for #ChildSexualAbuse #CSA!??? | Sabine K McNeill