The latest:
- Transgender father loses court battle over children’s birth certificates – rights of the child versus rights of the parent, but the law must be updated to be able to offer a better solution
- Sex offending may be in the genes but knowing that won’t prevent it – nature versus nurture, but still, bias must be left at the door for best practice in the relevant sectors
- Fostering before the age of two helps children in institutional care deal better with stress – part controversial, part common sense, except when you factor in the number of foster placements that break down in the UK….
Researching Reform 
They don’t half love to make simple things complicated !Of course children miss their parents (good or bad) and the younger they are the less they remember about them ,so the less they miss them the better they settle with the fosterers;
LikeLike
I can’t really agree with your first comment. The law simply cannot accommodate every single exigency of human existence. The birth certificate records a biological reality – that one identifiable person was the biological father of a child and another the mother. The law cannot change biology retrospectively. When someone has his/her gender reassigned, they actually alter their own biology with the help of medical science. This doesn’t blot out the whole of their previous existence however. The birth certificate belongs to the child, not the parent. It describes the realities of the child’s birth, not the parent’s subsequent life history.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
The article on nature and nurture is relevant to the Goddard Inquiry
LikeLike
Children in Care,Family Courts, and Forced Adoption are unecessary modern inventions !
The proof that social workers take children from parents via family courts when it is not in the best interests of the child is simple. Over 100,000 children are officially “in care” in the UK .This was not the case at all in the 1950s and 60s when children were taken en masse because they were “illegitimate” (born to unmarried mothers) .Social workers and the family courts were not yet a power in the land.Very few children were then taken for being at risk of harm or similar reasons. When however fashions changed and it was no longer considered a disgrace for unmarried mothers to have a child a yawning gap appeared in the child snatching industry and that gap was filled by inventing reasons for taking children such as” risk ” or “putting the parent’s needs before those of children”Hence the 100,000 babies and young children now in care (and many selected for forced adoption), who were never taken before because in the old days the excuse of illegitimacy was enough to keep the “industry” flourishing and forced adoption did not need to exist.
LikeLike