There are always interesting debates going on inside Westminster, but a question presented by Lord Stoddart of Swindon has just caught our eye.
In a written question presented at the House of Lords, Lord Stoddart asks the following about disclosure of information inside the family courts:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce measures to open the proceedings of the family courts and the Court of Protection to the press and public; and, if not, why not.”
The answer, given yesterday by Lord Faulks, is added below:
“The Government supports steps to increase openness whilst remaining mindful of the rights to privacy of those involved in such personal proceedings.
Since May 2009, amendments to the rules of court governing the practice and procedure to be followed in family proceedings have allowed accredited members of the media access to the majority of court hearings.
In January 2014 the President of the Family Division issued guidance requiring more judgments of both the Family Court and Court of Protection to be published online.
In August 2014 the President of the Family Division issued a consultation seeking views on the impact of these earlier steps to increase transparency in the family court and on ways to further increase transparency including, the possibility of public access. The Court of Protection Rule Committee is also taking forward work which will examine the benefits and risks of making rule changes which allow greater access to the media and public.”
So what do you think? Should we have more transparency inside the courts, and if so, how would it work in practice and who would be involved?
Researching Reform 
Parents appearing in family courts should be fee to invite whoever they like to monitor proceedings.At present relatives and friends, are refused admittance and that is grossly unfair
LikeLike
You are correct in what you write, but the problem is that unless family and friends are party to the proceedings then it is a no go, and to become party to the proceedings one has to hire a legal team, its the money go round, as the help line knows of just one case of thousands, a child living with the granparent was desperate to stay with the grandparent but the judge would not allow the evidence to be submitted, this grandparent also paid untold thousands of pounds to become party to the proceedings, only for the judge and all to be told the grandparent is an alcoholic and drug addict and then gagged, the case went to the HCPC for more then 2 years with a nothing, also the NSPCC told outright lies in the court again the grandparent took this to the highest levil within the NSPCC nothing and so it goes on and on, the child told the judge exactly what he wanted with the judge in agreement, but even she passed the buck back to the social services by saying I hope the SS will agree, so what was the judge doing getting paid to pass the buck. Old Mumby can say what he wants with the rest of them but we are talking of billions of pounds millions of jobs with the control of the population from the care system going into detention centres and then the prisons all
“In a child’s best interest”
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Justice must be SEEN, To be done.
LikeLike
At present Family Courts can be very easily ‘gamed’. The secrecy rules ostensibly designed to protect individuals (e.g. children) actually provide licence for Court Appointed Experts and other ‘Professionals’ to proffer any nonsense they like. At worst there is a 1% probability that a case may be overturned on appeal. In that case the Council may get a small fine – the ‘professionals’ get away with their inadequate performance.
The HCPC is a ‘blunt tool’ as it refuses to accept ‘Fitness to Practice’ concerns unless release of reports/documents is authorised by the Judiciary (who are routinely siding with Councils and hand-picked the Experts in the first place). Conversely the HCPC accepts without hesitation persecutory ‘concerns’ that are blatantly intended to shut up whistle-blowers and deprive advocates of their livelihood.
Prof Jane Ireland found that 2/3 of Psychological assessment reports in Family Court setting were poor or very poor. What does the British Psychological Society do about that?
I understand that the Supreme Court recently ruled to continue prohibiting civil claims against Court Appointed Experts in Family Court matters. Instead of objectivity this produces ‘Hired Guns’ who act in the interest of the rich and powerful – no accountability.
Legal Aid Solicitors routinely let the Councils win. McKenzie Friends were often the last bastion of decent people standing up for persecuted parents. The recent ‘concerns’ raised and ‘regulation’ demanded is in my view yet another ploy to disempower the vulnerable and let the rich and powerful acquire their targets. The term ‘asset stripping’ comes to mind – children as commodities ‘snatched’ to reach unconstitutional ‘adoption targets’ and satisfy deprived needs of The Establishment.
The likelihood of any police force or the CPP bringing criminal charges against fellow professionals ‘in the system’ is remote. Nevertheless I am currently giving it a try – submitted a 45 page dossier on a Psychiatrist who made self-incriminating remarks suggesting deep-seated compromise – seemingly stretching from 1997 to 2014!
The biggest beneficiary of the current Forced Adoption legislation and secrecy rules are extreme abusers who can ‘stage’ sexual assaults that are designed to be ‘unbelievable’ – safe in the knowledge that incompetence, cowardice and collusion will ‘brush the truth under the carpet’. The second biggest beneficiary are the many stakeholders in the ‘Adoption Industry’.
The losers are the children who all-too-frequently are trafficked INTO abuse, and their distraught parents on whom a death-penalty like consequence is inflicted by self-satisfied authority representatives who lack expertise, critical reflection, common sense, compassion and a moral compass.
LikeLike
well written with truth shame all falls on deaf ears all for money
LikeLike
Thanks Maggie for your kind words and outlining a HCPC case that seems symptomatic of its ‘alibi function’ (and NSPCC no better). There is an opportunity for anyone to reply to the ‘HCPC Consultation on revised standards of conduct, performance and Ethics’ until 26th June 2015:
http://www.hcpc-uk.org/aboutus/consultations/index.asp?id=188
The standard updates appear to be ‘rose tinted spectacles’ proposals that put even more responsibility for tackling suspected malpractice on the Practitioner. The standards fail to mention that concerns against Court Appointed Experts will fail to meet the ‘Standards of Acceptance’ if there is no Judiciary permission for report release – snookered. A persecutory concern brought against me by the management of the inadequate Psychiatrist cost me dearly.
The ‘Child Protection Procedure’ failed to establish that three women in their prime of life died in the 12 months run up to the assault on the child. The body of the boy’s godmother was found dead in her burnt out house. When visiting the scene (based on in depth investigative activities) 3 years after the fire I found a drugs bottle, a car indicator (run over?), a drinks can and an odd device:
Click to access suspected-arson-murder.pdf
I have been asking relevant authority representatives to reinvestigate the Open Verdict case – 8 month on they still failed to take meaningful action e.g. to secure and examine the evidence, or prosecute the named suspect (seemingly an ‘untouchable’ freemason). In parallel the Council who brought the case launched (and pretty much completed by now) the final ‘Forced Adoption’ step – which was seemingly the goal of the crime spree.
The purpose of this ‘Child Smuggling’ exercise seems to be ‘destruction’ of the reputational standing of the (supposedly ‘delusional’) mother and thus cover up of a lifetime of verbal, physical and sexual abuse (including sadism and ‘satanic’ rituals), three more untimely death and the disappearance of two babies (probably used for ‘Human Sacrifice’ rituals). One baby seemingly succeeded from incestuous rape at age 13.
LikeLike
It’s easy to prove the bias of the family court, simply look at the statistics of those children who WERE NOT taken into care after care proceedings! Parents do not “win” against the social workers! Shocking!
LikeLike
Most of the children who have been taken into care both historically and more recently have the symptoms of pernicious anaemia . The most worrying aspect of the whole child protection system is that it seems to be taking mostly blonde blue eyed children into care and putting blue eyed blonde babies up for adoption . This has some very worrying aspects in relation to precocious puberty which can occur in babies who have been affected by low birth weight or have optic neuropathy / atrophy , possibly caused by nitrous oxide gas which switches off B12 synthesis .It can also be caused by a head trauma from the use of forceps at birth . This optic atrophy leads to optic hypoplasia and this can have a nutritional component due to pernicious anaemia and B12 deficiency and may well lead to a precocious puberty even in children as young as 3 or 4 . Many Northern European and Indo European people have a gene mutation which prevents them from producing intrinsic factor in their stomach which is needed for B12 absorption . That many of the babies and children taken into care and who have been sexually abused , both historically and more recently tend to have blonde hair and / or blue eyes is both significant and is extremely disturbing . It may well be that babies and children who have been taken into care by the ” child protection ” organisation are being sexually abused right now . This situation may well be the ” historical child abuse ” scandal of the future , no doubt in about thirty years when all the documents have disappeared . We must act now .
LikeLike
Natasha has very kindly kept all updated of the god knows how many debates and investigations are going on of child abuse, and although there are thousands of victims so why do we need so many investigations debates and changes when it is only all talk with the victims told you are out of time and where is your evidence, child abuse goes back 1.000s years and it will continue there are to many high powerd people involved, so to shut up the plebs as they call the nation it is more talks all going no where and as mentioned above in a blog what of the kids in care now being abused, they all seem to be forgotten,
LikeLike
And I have you to thank for a lot of those updates, I’m grateful to you xxxx And yes, we need a little less conversation and a lot more action…..
LikeLike