This month for our column over at Jordans, we chose to write about the power of words within the family justice system, from the jargon used by lawyers, to the terms employed within children’s care homes and beyond onto the nation’s child abuse inquiry. In our article we look at the impact of using complex words that work to exclude rather than include families, children and relatives.
Does jargon really serve a purpose, or does it put up unnecessary barriers, when the sole purpose of language in the law should be, arguably, to pull barriers down?
You can access our article here.
Researching Reform 
Remember when you tell them you” love “your children, that for social workers “love” is a word they never use.They prefer to talk of “bonding ” with children in care,a word more applicable to the players in a Professional football team than to a child brutally separated from its mother or father
LikeLike
Not one person had mentioned the word ‘love’.
Oh yes , most social workers do not allow parents to hug their children- in care- or to tell them they love them…as it is deemed “not in the best inerests of the children”
It was the most inhumane moment of my life….just watching and feeling the sterile atmosphere created by those paid to care for the children.
The word Love was total Taboo.
Children were even followed to the bathroom with parents in case the parents declared their love to them.
Children were in state custody in reality and were being punished and made to feel like inhuman criminals.
No wonder the children run away, turn to drugs, etc to escape the inhuman nature of “state care”
The sadistic schadenfreude diseased workers always stand out in these situations.
Birthday cards and presents not allowed to be given by parents in the contact centers etc.
If we made a movie on it – we would all be horrified that the past Dickens era is alive and well with deep Love deprivation.
LikeLike
Yes, Lady P, it’s such a shame. The system struggles so much with these simple things, still.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Children's Rights and commented:
Excerpt from article:
Researching Reform: ~
Whether you take the view that legal jargon is an integral part of the culture inside the justice system, or offers an efficient labelling tool for the speedy processing of information, law is no longer a selective world but a communal one; and everyone wants to speak the language.
Blame the internet and a growing social conscience online, but simplifying language in law has been one of the defining phenomena for the UK justice system in the twenty-first century. For Family Courts at least, coming into contact with parents, children and extended family members who are not trained to deal in family law jargon, pressure to change the way we use language has contributed to wide-scale reform. The most notable to date, Mr Justice Ryder’s recommendations for modernising the family justice system, included looking at the way terms and phrases were being used and seeing how we could break those down and make them easier to understand. Despite this, much of the language still used in court and by lawyers and other professionals inside the justice system remains unnecessarily complex.
Litigants in Person (LIP) continue to struggle with terminology inside the courts, with judges reportingdelays inside their courtrooms as a result, and more time spent explaining phrases and processes. Sadly, the current guidelines seem to have done very little to address this problem, perhaps in large part due to the fact that legal jargon exists before and after the court process, with very little help for LIPs during those in-between moments when they are effectively without support.
Related Articles
Book review – Children Act Private Law Proceedings: A Handbook by Judge John Mitchell >
Researching Reform: Will the new government be the final nail in the coffin for child welfare? >
A day in the life of … Natasha Phillips (Legal Researcher) >
LikeLike
Even more important than revising the horrible language for “litigants in person” (why not say “those who represent themselves” ?) are the problems in finding the right forms for appeals,revocations,and applications for kinship care (care by relatives!)
Staff behind counters in family courts increasingly say they do not know anything about forms or tell parents they have to get a solicitor to appeal etc;
Once in court the LIP is too often treated with contempt instead of special courtesy.
Judges look bored while the LIPs speak and often dismiss their case without bothering to explain why,after believing hearsay from experts,guardians,and social workers in preference to live evidence from parents who are often given the LA position statement the day before or even the same day as the hearing.
LikeLike
Hi FA, I think that’s a huge problem. Even a simple question like can I file a form late? or which form do I need? is all too often met with “I don’t know.”
LikeLike
Dickensian attitudes belong in the Victorian era! In the 21st Century we are supposed to be enlightened with experience and compassion about how to improve the experience of being a child in the care system. There are numeras disciplines set up to benefit the children, social workers, psychologists to name two. They all speak the same language.
Just as Dickens has remained a popular author over the decades about his depiction of a harsh Victorian life set in the fiction genre, over those same decades we have heard and are still hearing about the terrible experiences of the children in care system. So what has been learnt?
Research has been used as a stick to beat the parents with and take their children into care and keep them there! Any child taken into care via family court should have the opportunity to get their child back quickly but there are reasons why that doesn’t happen.
Language is used to distance! I know! I can write this by inserting “child” not the childs name which makes it personal and emotive. Those very emotions that are frowned upon in the family court arena. There it become a paper exercise devoid of the human element.
Distancing language has been used throughout centuries. For example in Nazi Germany Jews were dehumanised by language quickly followed by behaviour and therefore it was easy to inflict punishments, torture and murder!
Declaring you love your child is at odds with how you are being portrayed and therefore there is conflict. To get rid of the conflict the language has to become sanitised! That is the start of the dehumanising process!
LikeLike
Many thanks for your thoughts, Dana.
LikeLike
Pingback: Language And The Law – Simple Doesn’t Mean Stupid | Children's Rights