It’s taken ten years for us to get here, but finally it seems the most senior minds inside the Family Court are starting to actively push for change.
Suggesting people would be forgiven for thinking the system was, “neither compassionate, nor even humane”, President of the Family Justice System, Sir James Munby was passing judgment in a case which involved two parents unable to access legal aid to fight to stop their three year old child from being adopted. Munby also touches on the human rights principles this case raises – the right to a fair trial is a well known and basic human right, which is currently being eroded by the government’s ongoing cutbacks to the child welfare and legal sectors.
These cutbacks are preventing parents and children from accessing legal support and this, to our mind at least, is a direct breach of Article 6.
Munby’s observation that the Family Court is a place devoid of compassion and humanity does not just apply to access to legal aid. It applies in every corner of the system where support services are being pared down, where training is not up to par and where working culture allows child protection processes to be ignored and even illegally circumvented.
Researching Reform supports Munby’s continued efforts to speak out about these issues, many of which he has touched upon in previous judgments – now we need Sir Munby to push a little harder. We have seen him talk about other controversial issues, such as male circumcision, but much like his comment on access to legal aid in the current case above, his wording is typically sheepish and cautious.
And whilst some might argue that judges should not be political nor allow their personal views to intertwine with their work (which for the most part we agree with), when it comes to government policy and legislation, the moment they begin to impact on basic human rights, every judge in the land has a duty to speak out.
The family justice system does not need more armchair philosophers or half hearted sentiment. 2016 is the year in which we must tell it like it is – and demand change.
Researching Reform 
I HAVE SAID IT BEFORE AND WILL SAY IT AGAIN MUNBY IS A FRONT MAN ONLY, AND WHAT EVER HE SAYS IS SO THAT WE THE PLEBS THINK HE IS SUPPORTING FAMILIES AND OPENING THE COURTS, COME ON PEOPLE WISE UP, THINK OF ALL OF THE PAEDOPHILES IN GOVERNMENT LIKE THE LORDS THE SIRS AND MORE ALL DEAD OR DISAPEARD OR NOT GUILTY THEY ARE IN CHARGE OF MUNBY AND TELL HIM WHAT TO SAY AND DO, AS FOR LEGAL AID WELL WHAT OF THE UNTOLD MILLIONS SET ASIDE FOR THE DEBATES INTO THE CHILD ABUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO KNOW HOW THEM UP THERE ALL WORK HAND IN GLOVE AND IF THEY DONT ITS RETIREMENT AND GOODBYE OR YOUR DEAD
LikeLike
Well! The system is self serving, draconian and neither compassionate or humane so why does it exist? It can’t be for the kids as it results in such poor outcomes for them.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful to trail blaze a new system and work with supporting families or is that too simple a concept?
Many voices within the industry are shouting that the child protection system has failed, is unfit for purpose on somany levels, so let the current system die and be replaced with something that is all the things the current system isn’t, supportive, humane and compassionate.
It’s true that those who made a living off the backs of families in crisis will lose their income but if they diverisfy and change roles they will thrive along with the kids! A win win situation! Social workers should support not destroy!
LikeLike
Hallelujah! We must not be grudging when a ‘top man’ says something like this. I don’t think Sir Munby is a ‘frontman’ but he just doesn’t have the power to change anything. Our vitriol should be directed to the Attorney General, he’s the one who can change Family Law. Having said that, Sir James Munby jailed my colleague Mark Harris for simply waving to his children, back in the early days of this century. My feeling is that we should never forget, but assume that Sir Munby has had something of a Damascene conversion since that time and we should encourage him, if we can, to keep speaking out about the inhumanity of the Family Court system. We should join in his call and make it much louder!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death!.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
FOUR important signs that high ups in the system admit we may be apologising for what the system is doing to parents and children now. Quotes that would have been unthinkable 10 years ago…………
1:-Orders contemplating non-consensual adoption – care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders – are “a very extreme thing, a last resort”, only to be made where “nothing else will do”, where “no other course is possible in [the child’s] interests”, they are “the most extreme option”, a “last resort – when all else fails” –Sir James Munby President of the family courts) in Re B: ‘
2:-. Maggie Mellon who is the Deputy Chair of the British Association of Social Workers said:
(https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/9-family-debate-transcript.pdf)
“The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent. That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that?”
3:-Sir james Munby (President of the family courts) also said at the Family Justice Council debate “The only thing I am confident about is that adoption as we will understand it and practise it in 30 years’ time will bear very little relation to adoption as we practise it today.
In re P (A child) 2016
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/3.html
4:-The Court of Appeal conclude that a Judge who made a Placement Order (thus authorising a child to be placed for adoption) had not conducted a sufficiently robust analysis of the relative merits of the placement options before making that decision. The Judge had set out in the judgment what he was required to do, but the Court of Appeal say that he didn’t actually do it.
LikeLike
Roger, Dana and Maggie.. oh! how well said. You all philosophy and mine’s go hand on hand. That Munby “defends” an inhumane Family Court and the Court of Protection with all sort of subjective or sheepish promises but, nothing different ever happens. If he demand change {in Family favour} to Parliament surely it will help. That is why WE have to persist to the Department of Health, the UNHR Committee and the Law Commission to twist Parliaments’ arms as this sort of barbarianism in these “money-oriented” Courts cannot continue if we are truly a Democratic Society that ratified Human Rights Act. I’ll NEVER give up the fight! I admire Sabine and Natasha’s powerful and dedicated drive to bring change for suffering Families and their unfortunate vulnerable loved ones.
LikeLike
Dear Sir Munby we the parents and grand parents are crying out to be heard but it seems we are ignored and put on deaf ears when we have justice.We are always rail roaded when social services are involved and in most cases all families need is support but it always turns out our children are placed for adoption and many cases they dont need to be and in the human rights act doesnt it state that in the best interest of the child children its best for the children to stay with tgeir birth family when ever pissible and its the last solution to place children for adoptiin.Of course if a child is in danger at home tgen a child must be removed but more and more children are been stolen by social services for the slightest reasons just like John Hemming MP lib dem stated in his interview.How many more innocent families are gonna suffer.Social services was formed to help and support families who were struggling not ti have their loved ones taken unlawfully illegally most times, My grand children were removed in this way and like thousands of other innocent families have destroyed us all when all it required was help and support all it does is harm the children and destroy a whole family for generations a lifetime of pain and cruelty not seeing our loved ones not to speak of tge harm to the children been ripped from their loving parents and other family members, Alienating them all must be a crime torture but when a chikd has been adopted where is the support then to the family theres none we are forgitten.In court all tgat matters is how fast can the system get hold of your child.This must stop now.Sor Munby you have the power to stop this.Your sincerly [edited] a grand fatger against forced adoptions.[Edited]
LikeLike
Thank you for your thoughts, and I’m sorry you’ve experienced all that you have. Forgive me, but for legal reasons, I have had to edit your comment.
LikeLike
My grandson was takin into care , social services have failed him big time, do not not listen to him , he has closed right down , left him with foster cares while he self harms him self , he pleads to come home …. It’s such a sad story , wish some one could help him …. S.w and cafcass have brained washed him ..fact
LikeLike
I’m so sorry to hear that. Please forgive the above edits, they’re due to legal and reporting restrictions.
LikeLike
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/17/social-workers-under-scrutiny-parents-camera
Families are at such a disadvantage within the biased family courts! Recordings should be made at all meetings with social workers!
LikeLike
Pingback: President Says Family Courts Are “Neither Compassionate Nor Humane.” – dandy159