• A Welcome
  • About
    • Privacy Policy
  • Child Abuse Inquiry Library
  • GSW
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Monthly Archives: August 2016

Researching Reform For Jordans

16 Tuesday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 4 Comments

For our column over at Jordans this month, we explain why the appointment of a fourth Chair for the nation’s Independent Child Abuse Inquiry should be viewed as a second chance and what the Inquiry must do now to make the most of that chance.

In the article, we discuss the missing elements to the Inquiry which are currently preventing it from moving forward and we offer some suggestions for improving the Inquiry’s chances of success.

You can catch the article here.

As part of our commitment to transparency we’ve added a short film about Jordans below for anyone wishing to know more about the publication we write for.

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question it!

15 Monday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 11 Comments

Welcome to another week.

The Court Of Protection has often raised concerns for the secretive way in which it conducts its business. With far reaching powers like the ability to compel individuals to undergo abortions, surgery and even detain those considered to be mentally impaired in places like hospitals, it is a court with an enormous amount of influence on day-to-day living.

Google “Court of Protection Problems” and a lot of items come up, including an article from The Guardian which explains why the Court Of Protection carries out much of its work behind closed doors. The piece explains that many of the cases the Court hears are private and involve families who would prefer not to let the world in on their personal affairs.

But every now and then a case crops up which blurs the boundary between right to privacy and public interest, and raises questions about the judges who make such draconian orders. The case of Kathleen Danby, a grandmother facing jail for hugging her grand-daughter is one such case. The case began with a contact order which effectively banned Ms Danby from seeing her grand daughter, Janine, who was placed in care.  Ms Danby defied this court order in 2014 by hugging Janine, an event which was caught on CCTV by social workers, and subsequently saw Ms Danby go to jail. Ms Danby faces jail again, after her grand daughter ran away from her care home recently, and tried to make her way to Ms Danby.

Whilst we don’t know the reasons for the order banning contact (the article explains that Ms Danby lives near Janine’s father, so perhaps there are concerns in relation to his conduct), we do know that Janine is 20 years old, an adult in the eyes of the law. Ms Danby is 74 years old, and clearly not deterred by jail time.

No one has yet questioned how Janine was able to run away from her care home not once, but twice. We already know that there are huge numbers of children running away from care homes in England, a phenomenon which continues to place children at risk of exploitation and other forms of harm.

So our question then, is just this: Do you think the Court Of Protection is handling this case in the best way possible, regardless of what the facts may be, or is it unfair to judge without all the information? 

face_question_mark

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Professor Jay Appointed Head Of Abuse Inquiry

11 Thursday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 9 Comments

Former Inquiry panel member, Professor Alexis Jay, has been chosen to replace Justice Goddard as Chair for the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual abuse.

In a statement on the Inquiry’s website, Professor Jay says:

“I am committed to ensuring this Inquiry does everything it has set out to do and does so with pace, with confidence and with clarity.

“Be in no doubt – the Inquiry is open for business and people are busier than ever working hard to increase momentum. The Panel and I are determined to make progress on all parts of the Inquiry’s work, including speaking to victims and survivors.

I am determined to overcome the challenges along the way. I will lead the largest public inquiry of its kind and together with my fellow Panel members we will fearlessly examine institutional failures, past and present and make recommendations so that the children of England and Wales are better protected now and in the future.”

In a letter to the Home Secretary  in which Professor Jay responds to the Government’s invitation to Chair the Inquiry, Professor Jay accepts, and declares she has no direct interests relating to the subject matter of the Inquiry. The letter goes on to detail her experience as a social worker, manager and Chief Executive and Chief Inspector of Social Work For Scotland. However she is perhaps best known for her report on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, often referred to as the Jay Report, which was very well received by survivors and victims of abuse.

Professor Jay’s appointment is important for several reasons. It of course symbolises the latest effort in finding a reliable and appropriate Chair but it is also the first time that the Inquiry has hosted a Chair without any legal qualifications. This may prove challenging if the Inquiry continues along its adversarial path, holding trial-like hearings and flirting with Inquiry boundaries as set out by the Inquiries Act, but it is also a blessing. The Inquiry is heavily dominated by legal minds, which whilst very useful for pouring over detail and pulling out potential violations of law, is not so well suited to teasing out the narrative which has allowed abuse in this country to go undetected and ignored for so long. That requires someone who has direct experience with the subject matter of child exploitation and a solid understanding of victim and survivor culture. Professor Jay may well be able to offer the insight necessary to make the Inquiry much more efficient and potentially ground breaking.

We wish Professor Jay much luck and strength.

alexis-jay_1

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Loophole Allows Unqualified Psychologists To Practice

10 Wednesday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in Family Law, Researching Reform

≈ 15 Comments

An article in the July-August edition of Private Eye magazine highlights a controversial loophole which could allow incompetent and unscrupulous Family Court experts to practice whilst enjoying immunity from malpractice claims.

It describes how unqualified psychologists are able to act as experts, and dodge malpractice claims by simply avoiding the use of various “protected” titles like ‘educational’, ‘clinical’ or ‘forensic’. This means that they can offer their services without the need to be  registered and regulated by the UK’s watchdog, the Health and Care Professions Council  (HCPC).

The article goes on to express concerns about unregistered court experts who are often invited to give evidence on cases involving rape, child exploitation and child contact and care cases. The piece focuses on one particular psychologist who is not registered but uses several of the protected titles on his website and has worked on high profile and often complex child protection cases. However, as he calls himself a consultant and not a psychologist the HCPC maintains he is not misusing a protected title  and therefore cannot act.

This development is particularly serious because the consultant works in the Family Court advising on child welfare matters. The new Family Justice Council Guidelines also require that psychologists working in the family courts as experts must be HCPC registered – which this psychologist is not.

Professor Jane Ireland’s 2012 report detailing serious concerns about the quality of expert evidence from Family Court psychiatrists and psychologists – it found that over 20% of psychologists  in  family cases  were  unqualified  and  65%  of  expert  reports  were  either  of  ‘poor’  or  ‘very  poor’  quality – is also mentioned in the Private Eye piece. Jane’s report was responsible for the new Family Justice guidelines on expert witnesses which were designed to protect the public.

It’s clear that the law and policy in this area needs urgent attention. Researching Reform is a strong advocate of regulating this area further in order to ensure that the quality of expert evidence in the Family Court, and in other courts too, conforms to best practice guidelines.

We are adding a redacted version of the  Private Eye piece below:

“A  gaping  hole  in  the  regulation  of  psychologists  could  put  the  public  at  risk  from  unscrupulous,  inept  or  unaccountable ‘experts’.  

Providing  psychologists  don’t  use  one  of  nine  so-called  ‘protected  titles’  –  for  example,  educational,  clinical,  or  forensic  – any  can  offer  their  services  without  the  need  to  be  registered  and  regulated  by  the  U.K.’s  watchdog,  the  Health  and  Care Professions  Council  (HCPC).  Even  if  serious  concerns  or  complaints  are  raised  about  them,  they  remain  immune  from investigation  because  they’re  not  registered.

Nowhere  is  the  danger  of  the  regulatory  body’s  impotence  more  starkly  illustrated  than  in  the  courts,  where  it  seems  that unregistered,  unqualified  and  potentially  unfit  psychologists  can  operate  as  ‘experts’  in  even  the  most  serious  cases  of murder,  rape  or  child  sexual  exploitation.  No-one  illustrates  this  absurd  Catch-22  better  than  ‘consultant  psychologist’ [edited],  who  has  acted  as  an  expert  in  several  high-profile  cases,  including  the  [edited]  child  grooming  case,  where a  gang  raped  and  trafficked  underage  girls.

[Edited],  a  trained  educational  psychologist  who  used  to  work  in  local  government,  has  been  the  subject  of  at  least  four complaints,  including  manipulating  data  and  acting  beyond  his  qualifications  and  expertise.  Three  have  not  been  investigated because  he  has  never  been  registered  with  the  HCPC.  Because  of  the  fourth,  his  application  for  registration  in  2012  was refused,  when  he  was  judged  to  be  ‘not  of  good  character’.

According  to  his  website,  [edited]  also  acts  in  the  family  courts  in  sensitive  child  contact  and  care  cases,  in  what  looks  like a  clear  breach  of  new  guidelines  from  the  Family  Justice  Council  (a  public  body  which  advises  on  family  justice  matters) and  the  industry  body  the  British  Psychological  Society  (BPS).  The  guidelines  state  that  family  courts  expect  all psychologists  acting  as  experts  to  be  HCPC-registered  unless  they  are  academics.

In  fact  his  website  offers  services  in  several  of  the  areas  of  expertise  covered  by  protected  titles  (educational,  forensic, practitioner,  counselling),  again  contrary  to  what  the  BPS  says  in  its  online  directory  of  chartered  psychologists  (in  which [edited]  is  listed).  It  says  that  ‘anyone  offering  services  within  these  [protected  title]  areas  must  also  be  registered’  with  the HCPC.

[Edited]  website  logo  even  uses  the  word  ‘educational’  –  but  because  he  simply  chooses  to  call  himself  a  ‘consultant’,  the HCPC  maintains  he  is  not  misusing  a  protected  title  and  thus  it  can’t  act.  It  adds  that  statutory  regulation  and corresponding  regulatory  titles  are  decided  by  the  government,  and  it’s  for  ministers  to  change  them.  The  BPS,  meanwhile, says  it  now  only  ‘advises’  on  standards  and  best  practice,  ‘but  where  we  are  aware  of  gaps  in  regulation,  we  raise  these with  the  regulator’  –  i.e.  the  HCPC!

The  BPS  says  it  can’t  comment  on  individual  members,  but  adds  that  it  has  raised  concerns  that  the  general  title ‘psychologist’  is  not  protected.  It  still  seems  happy  to  promote  [edited],  though.

As  the  HCPC  admits,  [edited]  is  not  the  only  one  dancing  rings  around  registration.  Prof.  Jane  Ireland  –  author  of  a damning  2012  study  which  triggered  the  recent  family  court  reform,  having  found  that  one  in  five  psychologists  in  family cases  was  working  beyond  their  expertise  and  65%  of  expert  reports  were  either  of  ‘poor’  or  ‘very  poor’  quality  –  tells  the Eye:  ‘All  practising  psychologists  who  act  as  expert  witnesses  should  be  regulated  so  that  the  public  are  protected’.

[Edited]  was  refused  registration  because  of  ‘concerns  about  his  character’  after  staff  at  [edited]  Young  offenders Institution  asked  in  2012  for  proof  of  identity  and,  er,  HCPC  registration.  It  triggered  lengthy  and  ‘inappropriate’ correspondence  between  [edited]  and  the  jail.  An  HCPC  regulatory  panel  threw  out  his  appeal  in  2013,  saying  he  was completely  unable  to  accept  that  his  written  outbursts  had  been  unacceptable,  that  he  had  demonstrated  no  insight  into  the potential  consequences  and  that  he  had  shown  no  remorse.  The  panel  said  that  he  had  displayed  a  similar  attitude  in communication  with  the  HCPC  itself,  that  it  could  not  rule  out  a  repetition  of  similar  behaviour  and  that  his  conduct  would ‘damage  public  confidence  in  the  regulatory  process’.

[Edited]  response  to  the  three  complaints  made  by  fellow  psychologists  has  been  to  fire  off  counter-allegations,  the  irony being  that  those  properly  registered  and  regulated  complainants  then  find  themselves  under  HCPC  investigation,  while  he escapes.

Thus,  in  the  [edited]  grooming  case,  [edited],  a  registered  chartered  psychologist,  was  so  alarmed  to  find  an unregistered  educational  psychologist,  whom  she  considered  neither  qualified  to  reach  his  conclusions  about  an  adult  sex attacker  nor  completely  open  about  those  conclusions,  that  she  complained  to  both  the  HCPC  and  the  BPS.  She  was  told neither  could  do  anything.  Instead  she  herself  was  investigated  when  [edited]  fired  off  a  counterblast.  ‘It  was  very  irritating, but  of  course  there  was  no  merit  in  his  complaints  and  they  were  all  swiftly  dismissed,’  she  told  the  Eye.  [Edited]  boasts on  his  website  about  the  [edited]  case:  ‘Of  the  seven  men  convicted,  five  were  given  life  sentences.  The  man  I  assessed was  given  a  sentence  substantially  below  that  of  his  co-defendants,  and  without  a  tariff’.

Another  victim  of  [edited]’s  revenge  salvos  was  [edited],  an  academic  and  leading  clinical  and  forensic psychologist.  After  taking  advice,  he  complained  to  the  then  regulator,  the  BPS,  that  [edited] had  manipulated  IQ  test scores  in  the  trial  of  a  man  accused  in  2008  of  converting  replica  weapons  into  firearms  used  in  a  series  of  murders.  It made  the  man  appear  less  intelligent,  and  therefore  less  culpable.  [The academic]  told  the  Court  at  the  time  he  had  ‘never encountered  such  extraordinary  conduct  before’.  In  the  event  it  seems  [edited]  evidence  held  little  or  no  sway:  the defendant  was  convicted  and  sentenced  to  life.

When  [edited]  duly  counter-complained,  however,  the  BPS  decided  to  investigate  [edited] complaint  first.  It  swiftly  exonerated [the academic];  but  it  never  got  round  to  investigating  [edited] because,  in  the  meantime,  fitness  to  practise  and  regulatory issues  had  been  passed  to  the  HCPC.  [The academic] told  the  Eye:  ‘Guidelines  indicate  that  the  need  to  protect  clients from  unsafe  practice  from  psychological  experts  and  professional  witnesses  is  paramount.  But  there  is  absolutely  no protection  if  a  psychologist  is  not  registered’.

In  a  third  case  involving  [edited],  while  he  again  escaped  investigation  of  complaints  about  his  expertise  and  findings,  it took  almost  two  years  before  his  unfounded  counter-allegations  against  a  registered  psychologist  were  dismissed  –  this  time with  an  HCPC  apology.

No-one  can  say  whether  the  complaints  about  [edited]  would  have  been  upheld.  The  scandal  is  that  because  he  can  so easily  act  outside  the  regulatory  system,  no-one  even  bothers  to  consider  them.”

What changes would you like to see in the regulation of Family Court experts? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

A very big thank you to Roger Crawford, who alerted us to this article.

Private Eye

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

In The News

09 Tuesday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

The latest child welfare news from around the world:

  • Point Blank: The Public Health Case For Gun Related Injury Research  – Approximately 7 children each day, die from gun related injuries (US)
  • New laws being written to overcome Child Protection Failures – decision made after damning Nyland Report (South Australia)
  • Abuse Inquiry’s former Chair, Justice Goddard to go before Home Affairs Committee in September to Explain Resignation

Buzz

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question it!

08 Monday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 10 Comments

Welcome to another week.

With the recent news that Justice Lowell Goddard has handed in her resignation as Chair for the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, speculation has been mounting as to who will replace her.

Contenders have now begun to emerge. 

Professor Alexis Jay, a current panel member and former social worker who led the independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, and who also chairs the Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland, is the front runner to take up the role. Widely respected by victims and survivors of abuse, and without any establishment links, she is considered to be a strong choice. However, some are calling for Jay to act only as an interim Chair until a permanent replacement can be found, though the Inquiries Act does not make any provision for a temporary Chair.

Sue Berelowitz, the former deputy children’s commissioner, has also publicly announced that she would take on the role if asked by Home Secretary, Amber Rudd. Berelowitz is a controversial choice. Outspoken and reactionary (she made waves with her stark warning about media reporting and greater transparency in the family courts being responsible for child suicides), Sue has a great deal of experience working with issues relating to child sexual abuse having assisted on inquiries of this nature before, and brings a child-focused approach to the table. But will her views on transparency help or hinder the Inquiry should she be appointed as Chair?

Michael Mansfield QC, also favoured by survivors, victims, and lawyers, is a possible choice for Chair, unafraid to challenge the establishment and has said in the past that he would take on the job if asked, though he has little direct experience with child abuse cases.

Lead counsel for the Inquiry Ben Emmerson QC may also be in the running; his knowledge in the field of human rights and his engagement with the Inquiry, making him familiar with survivors and other key players make him a practical choice, but a risky one. He has been implicated in panel tensions and very public rows over the Inquiry’s process, which have slowed things down and grated away at public trust in the Inquiry.

Berelowitz, Mansfield and Emmerson were previously shortlisted for the role before Goddard was nominated, so it’s likely that they will be re-considered. However there are others who could also be put forward for the position. Although never made public, a list of 150 candidates was produced before Justice Goddard was chosen, meaning that there are potentially a large number of people who could be offered the job.

Our question this week then, is just this: who do you think should Chair the nation’s Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse?

face_question_mark

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Freeing Women From Polygamy In 1968

06 Saturday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 4 Comments

Whether sent by mistake to their online subscribers or as a reminder that The Law Commission holds some fascinating pieces of history in its archives, a pioneering consultation from 1968 on Polygamy which landed in our inbox, is our post of the day.

From the different types of polygamy encountered (there were four), to the leading case at the time called Hyde v Hyde, the consultation takes you through a ground breaking moment in human rights and family law. It was also ahead of its time – it attempts to protect Muslim women living in England,  married into polygamous marriages under Islamic Law, with cultural sensitivity and grace.

Screen Shot 2016-08-04 at 11.28.23

The consultation looks at the limits of the leading case in the context of women’s and children’s rights, circumstances in which polygamy could be recognised and highlights the tricky entanglements that came into play when parties tried to divorce.

Like most moments that change the course of history, this report is as sad as it is beautiful. It represents a struggle to come to terms with a growing awareness that women and children are human beings with the right to legal protection, and religious and moral principles that fit uncomfortably with a need to offer relief to those suffering under polygamous arrangements. All of these things make this document a must read.

Screen Shot 2016-08-04 at 11.40.41

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Abuse Inquiry Chair Resigns, Blaming A “Legacy Of Failure”

05 Friday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 11 Comments

After the disappointing news that yet another Inquiry Chair is leaving the role, racking up the total to three failed Chairmanships, reasons for Lowell Goddard’s departure are now starting to emerge.

In a full statement released this morning, Lowell Goddard blames the Inquiry’s “legacy of failure’ which she said, had been “very hard to shake off”.

 

You can read the letter in full, below:

“I announce with regret my decision to resign as chair of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, effective from today.

When I was first approached through the British High Commissioner in Wellington in late 2014, and asked to consider taking up the role, I had to think long and hard about it.

After carefully discussing the matter with the home secretary and her officials and seeking the counsel of those people in New Zealand whose opinions mattered to me, I decided that I should undertake the role, given my relevant experience and track record in the area.

It was, however, an incredibly difficult step to take, as it meant relinquishing my career in New Zealand and leaving behind my beloved family.

The conduct of any public inquiry is not an easy task, let alone one of the magnitude of this. Compounding the many difficulties was its legacy of failure which has been very hard to shake off and with hindsight it would have been better to have started completely afresh.

While it has been a struggle in many respects, I am confident there have been achievements and some very real gains for victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse in getting their voices heard.

I have nothing but the greatest of respect for the victims and survivors and have particularly enjoyed working with the Victims and Survivors Consultative Panel which I established.”

As Goddard points out, and as we mention in our previous post, the Inquiry must refocus and put in place an altogether more open and functional strategy. We will be writing an article in due course on how they might do this.

IICSA July

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

Goddard RESIGNS as Child Abuse Inquiry Chair

04 Thursday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 8 Comments

In another hugely disappointing turn for the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, Chair Lowell Goddard has just handed in her resignation.

Giving no reason for the decision, she simply asks the Home Secretary to accept her decision to resign with immediate effect.

Goddard.png

Some are speculating that the move is a reaction to the recent criticism over Justice Goddard’s decision to take a three month holiday since first being appointed as Inquiry Chair. Others have suggested that the press interest in her confusion over British law, reluctance to fully incorporate survivors within the Inquiry and questionable rank within the New Zealand judiciary could be factors in her departure.

Whatever the reason, Researching Reform takes the view that the Inquiry urgently needs to rethink its core PR strategy and start to engage with the public at large, not as a means of gaining popularity, but as a crucial tool to gain the trust and respect of the nation and most importantly the survivors both taking part in the Inquiry, and watching on.

Whoever takes up the mantle must inspire confidence and not be afraid to let in the world as the Inquiry does its work.

Good luck, contestant number four.

Goddard L

Lowell Goddard

 

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...

New Research: 1 in 14 Adults Sexually Abused As A child

04 Thursday Aug 2016

Posted by Natasha in Research, Researching Reform

≈ 6 Comments

The ONS’s Crime Survey For England and Wales has for the first time included in depth data relating to child sexual abuse.

The Survey, which was published last month, tells us:

  • 11% of women and 3% of men said they were sexually assaulted during their childhood
  • 567,000 females aged between 16 and 59, suffered sexual assault by rape or penetration, as minors
  • 102,000 males aged between 16 and 59, suffered sexual assault by rape or penetration, as minors
  • Women were significantly more likely to report they had been an abuse victim than men
  • Individuals blamed for psychological or physical abuse were most likely to be the person’s parents
  • Rape and penetration attack survivors said the most likely attacker was a friend or acquaintance (30%) or other family member (26%)
  • 3 out of 4 victims of  sexual assault said they did not report what happened at the time. The most common reason given was “embarrassment or humiliation, or thinking that they would not be believed.”
  • 42% of assaults were carried out by strangers

Politicians and child welfare charities are calling on the government to look into more ways to tackle ongoing child sexual abuse.

The “10-15 Year olds Survey” is also interesting, and very worth while, as it highlights the little known fact that 10-15 year olds are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than adults are. The survey is designed to look at crime, bullying, thoughts on the police, and steps taken to keep belongings safe and its findings will be used to prevent crimes against children.

CS ONS

 

Share this:

  • Tweet
  • WhatsApp
  • Pocket
  • Telegram
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Email
  • Print

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,045 other followers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

August 2016
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Children In The Vine : Stories From The Family Justice System

Categories

  • Adoption
  • All Party Parliamentary Group on Family Law and The Court of Protection
  • Articles
  • Big Data
  • Bills
  • Case Study
  • child abuse
  • child abuse inquiry
  • child welfare
  • Children
  • Children In The Vine
  • Circumcision
  • Civil Partnerships
  • Consultation
  • Conversations With…
  • Corporal Punishment
  • CSA
  • CSE
  • Data Pack
  • Domestic Violence
  • Encyclopaedia on Family and The Law
  • event
  • Family Law
  • Family Law Cases
  • FGM
  • FOI
  • forced adoption
  • Foster Care
  • Fudge of the Week
  • Fultemian Project
  • Huffington Post
  • Human Rights
  • IGM
  • Inquiry
  • Interesting Things
  • Interview
  • Judge of the Week
  • Judges
  • judicial bias
  • Law to lust for
  • legal aid
  • LexisNexis Family Law
  • LIP Service
  • LIPs
  • Marriage
  • McKenzie Friends
  • MGM
  • News
  • Notes
  • petition
  • Picture of the Month
  • Podcast
  • Question It
  • Random Review
  • Real Live Interviews
  • Research
  • Researching Reform
  • social services
  • social work
  • Spotlight
  • Stats
  • Terrorism
  • The Buzz
  • The Times
  • Troubled Families Programme
  • Twitter Conversations
  • Update
  • Vocie of the Child
  • Voice of the Child
  • Westminster Debate
  • Your Story

Recommended

  • Blawg Review
  • BlogCatalog
  • DaddyNatal
  • DadsHouse
  • Divorce Survivor
  • Enough Abuse UK
  • Family Law Week
  • Family Lore
  • Flawbord
  • GeekLawyer's Blog
  • Head of Legal
  • Just for Kids Law
  • Kensington Mums
  • Law Diva
  • Legal Aid Barristers
  • Lib Dem Lords
  • Lords of The Blog
  • Overlawyered
  • PAIN
  • Paul Bernal's Blog
  • Public Law Guide
  • Pupillage Blog
  • Real Lawyers Have Blogs
  • Story of Mum
  • Sue Atkins, BBC Parenting Coach
  • The Barrister Blog
  • The Magistrate's Blog
  • The Not So Big Society
  • Tracey McMahon
  • UK Freedom of Information Blog
  • WardBlawg

Archives

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.
Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
%d bloggers like this: