Welcome to another week.
The Ministry of Justice and HM Courts and Tribunals Service have released a joint statement outlining their intention to go ahead with what they’re calling “an ambitious programme of reform” to modernise the justice system. And that includes the Family Courts.
Setting aside the standard rhetoric inside the accompanying vision statement, the aim is to make the system just, proportional and accessible. The section focusing on the Family Courts can be found at page 13, and explains that the main focus for these courts should be to make the law simple and straightforward, whilst placing the welfare of the child first.
It’s no coincidence that the family justice system has decided to review the way it functions just as it finds itself on its knees, struggling to cope with an ever-growing number of cases and an ever shrinking budget to handle them. Whole scale reform was something we predicted would happen eight years ago, and it offers an amazing opportunity to finally develop the system in a way which is both humane and effective.
Our question then, is just this: whether you are a parent, child or family professional, what reforms would you like to see, and why?
Researching Reform 
Every person who’s “evidence/opinion” is included in the court bundle should be present in court to have their evidence tested, should any party wish to do so, and be automatically prosecuted when they are proven to have committed perjury.
Nothing unsigned to be included in the court bundle.
When I say in court, I mean in the court building. They should not be present during the hearing except when they are giving their evidence.
A panel of 3 judges, or a Jury of 12 peers should be used to prevent the abuse suffered by some at the hands of (lets be kind an say eccentric) judges such as Dodds of Liverpool.
SW’s, Guardians, Witnesses, Experts should not be allowed to sit together discussing the case, before, during and after, as I have seen them do many times.
Families should be allowed to use recording equipment in court providing the child could not be identified from this.
Courts MUST be opened to the public and press, provided they know they must name the children involved.
A method must be found where children certainly over the age of 10 must be present and allowed to speak, should they wish to do so, in a court which is to decide their future.
Verdicts should be based on “Beyond Reasonable doubt” rather than balance of probabilities before any child is taken into our woefully inadequate care system which time and time again results in seriously bad outcomes for children leaving care.
Children’s views must not be represented solely by servants of the state.
Children should not be taken into care unless there are findings of neglect or abuse, in which case a criminal prosecution and conviction must follow before a child is taken.
Private fostering adoption agencies should have to charge councils fees which are more in line with LA foster carers fees.
If the families are not able to be represented by a Barrister in court, then to balance the scales of justice, Local authorities should have to act for themselves also. (I would love to see some of the incompetent SW’s I have seen, trying to present their own case.)
I fully realise this is certainly no way to get justice on the cheap, which is what the reforms are intended to do, but it would certainly help level the playing field and ultimately save councils money as there would be less children taken into care for frivolous reasons, and it would make SW’s think twice before initiating dubious actions.
Perhaps some of the money saved could be used to fund community services to help families in difficulty and then Social Workers would be able to do what they are supposed to do, “Social Work”
LikeLike
totally agree with pretty much most of what you said here.
Social workers with their dubious case files colluding with family court judges via emails etc as stated by Justice Pauffley below.
its a scandal of epic proportions so why isnt it all over the news and why are the serious crime squad not investigating this corruption. im shure hundreds of S/workers and judges would end up being arrested for what is nothing short of crimes against Humanity.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562249/It-never-happen-Appeal-judge-slams-cut-paste-decision-family-court-led-social-workers-taking-baby-parents-unjustly.html
LikeLike
What need to be done to change a cruel and unjust system? The only remedy would be new legislation on similar lines to the following:-
1:-No Punishment without Crime
Children must never be considered for removal from sane parents unless a parent has been convicted in a criminal court of a serious crime against a child or children.If a parent is charged with such a crime the child or children may be removed temporarily but returned if the parent is acquitted.There should be “No punishment without crime” Law abiding parents should never have their children removed.
2:- Parents and children must never be legally gagged
Restore absolute freedom of speech and public protest as already exists in the USA;. Parents must be allowed to identify themselves and protest via the media if their children are taken from them.When children are in care they should be allowed free discussion with relatives and friends,and given mobile phones or allowed to keep their own if of an age when they can use one.They should be allowed to speak their own language (if foreign) to parents and others.All allegations of abuse in care should be investigated by police and never ignored.Parents must have the right to call their own children to court in person ( as their witnesses (Article 6 human rights act ) irrespective of age to testify if they have been ill treated and if they want to return home rather than take their opinions hearsay from a social worker or guardian who could be biased or intimidating.
3:-Always allow some form of contact between non criminal parents and children..
Parents not guilty of crimes against children must never be deprived of face to face contact with their children; but even if they have been convicted of such crimes (providing those offences do not include child sexual relations or violence towards their own children) they should then still be allowed to initiate indirect contact by phone,email,or post . Non molestation orders should only have effect if a parent molests a partner ,spouse or child ;To molest =to intentionally harass or annoy (Oxford dictionary) and must not extend to legal prevention of indirect contact.
4:-Abolish forced adoption !
Forced adoption = adoption despite active opposition from parents via the courts and other forms of protest.The UK is the only country in the world in which babies can be taken at birth for “risk of future emotional abuse” and then forcibly adopted despite law abiding mothers begging to keep them !.All adoptions that do take place should be open so that the parent (if available) should know where the child is going and with whom.Even the present system of forced adoptions could be modified if birth parents were allowed FACE TO FACE contact once a year and indirect contact by phone or letter twice a year( birthdays and Xmas maybe) many would accept the adoption with such a deal, rather than oppose it and risk losing all contact with their children for the rest of their lives; .
HOW TO BRING ABOUT THE ABOVE CHANGES ?
All major changes are brought about by parliament as only MPs can bring about changes in the law by their votes in the House of Commons. They will only do this if public opinion is strong enough to cost them votes and possibly their seats if they do not comply;Most MPs advertise in local press and on the internet their surgeries to hear grievances from constituents at least once a month. Parents should press for changes in the law at these meetings with their own MPs.Do not as a rule plead your own case as most MPs will refuse to interfere with the courts but cannot easily refuse to discuss changes in the law that you suggest.Also write letters to all the National and also local newspapers that you can think of cutting and pasting the above paras or writing your own versions if you prefer. If enough pressure is brought in this way the law will eventually be changed
LikeLiked by 1 person
Should be NOT name the children involved.
LikeLike
It seems on second thought Natasha, you decided that I was right for you to encourage readers to take part in this Reforming as your project is called “Researching Reform”. Thanks again for doing this as the MoJ has the powers to create changes in Family Law and no Group or organisation can.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
i would like to see much more effort for everybody involved(especialy paid experts social workers lawyers etc) to get there facts right-and to put a stop to perjury,
collusion and the like-much easier said than done
LikeLike
it is difficult for the legal people to speak out with truth, if they are out spoken they will find it difficult to renew their licence they have to pay for yearly to enable them to work, but how wonderful if the legal people did argue against each other in the courts for justice, and when any one is questioned by the police its all recorded, should be the same for all the army in a kids life, then we should get rid of the court lawyers who are allocated to kids in care those lawyers are as hooky as they come and well known for working along side the LA lawyers the kids lawyer never speak truth for the kids, so if only the legal people would join forces and really go to town in the courts then we may also see change.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
A move in the right direction.
LikeLike
it would be difficult to disagree with most of the comments made here. I would like to add that I think the Family Courts should be made ‘open’ as there are already enough safeguards in the Justice system to prevent individuals being named. It should also be recognised that every report, every study, shows that children are, in the vast majority of cases, best brought up knowing both parents, whether or not those parents live together. And parents matter too – one day those children will probably be parents themselves and it is not right that once they reach a certain age or status, then they cease to be a priority. We all matter. And the family unit is proved beyond doubt to be the best and most stable environment for children. I would like to see this recognised in the Family Courts as well as everywhere else.
LikeLike
Social workers with their false case files are colluding with family court judges via emails etc as stated by Justice Pauffley below.
its a scandal of epic proportions so why isnt it all over the news and why are the serious crime squad not investigating this corruption. im shure hundreds of S/workers and judges all across the country would end up being arrested and prosecuted for what is nothing short of crimes against Humanity. they should also strip them of assets under the proceeds of crime act and all the money should go as compensation to the parents and children whos lives they have damaged.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562249/It-never-happen-Appeal-judge-slams-cut-paste-decision-family-court-led-social-workers-taking-baby-parents-unjustly.html
LikeLike
I would like to see in these courts ,social workers being made accountable ,report`s backed up by fact`s and not just on the word of a social worker . There should be more done to help mothers to keep there children, there is far to many child being taken into care ,long term fostering and adoption ,the figures or appalling. There should be better incentives for social workers to try and keep a child with there family .All this money spent on these court cases ,foster care,would be better spent on employing many more social workers to keep the child in the family .All this money given to councils to adopt children ,must be brought to an end,to many children or being taken for the wrong reasons .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gingerbread Statistics on Child Maintenance 2015
* The majority of single parents don’t receive child maintenance payments (iv)
* 41 per cent of children in single parent families live in relative poverty, around twice the risk of relative poverty faced by children in couple families (24 per cent). (v)
In the 49.6% of all cases reviewed by the CMS parents have been awarded nil penalty. In other words they are not held responsible to pay any support what so ever to their children.
Currently, the CMS will not act on information that a non paying parent is receiving non declared income, they are bound to only calculate income that is declared through HMRC, but if you speak to HMRC they will tell you that they are overwhelmed by calls daily from single parents informing them of income that is not being declared by the non resident parent.
£4bn are owed in child support arrears. When parents fail to pay child support the only action that the CSA can take is to issue a fine to the parent that is already refusing to pay, the maximum being £300.
Our family courts do not and will not discuss finances in any manor, but whether we like or not it is important and needs to be allowed to be discussed in the family court.
If the family courts allowed the discussion of finances it would show the true intentions of the non resident parent and therefore this would and should create a deterrent for those believing that they don’t need to financially support their children as they will receive the contact schedule that suits them anyway.
If the non resident parent is found to be withholding funds or intentionally cheating their child from payments then the court should not rule all contact around the non paying parent but should instead rule all contact around the work pattern of the providing parent, this would then go someway into helping single parent families get themselves out of poverty.
There is currently no deterrent to prevent the non resident parent from paying , the law is far too weak in this area and it needs to be urgently reformed.
Single parents are seriously struggling and they currently have no one to help them as there is nothing that can be done due to our laws being too weak.
Perhaps we should take a look at the US and their Enforcement of Child Support Orders,
If a parent fails to meet his or her support payment obligations, enforcement of a child support order can take a number of forms. In some states, the order itself will state that the parent’s wages will be withheld if support payments are not made as ordered. Additional actions that may be taken include seizure of property, interception of tax refunds, and the court’s holding the non-paying parent “in contempt” of the support order. In this context, a finding of “contempt” is a legal ruling that the court’s instructions as to child support were violated, and punishment can include jail time in some cases).
LikeLike
Agreed
LikeLike
I would like to see Social Services and Police STOP removing children in the first place! That would take a big burden off family courts who LEGITIMISE that snatching.
Unfortunately, it has been CONSISTENTLY RISING ever since statistics have been published. And only 152 of the 326 local authorities are taken into account…
See https://www.change.org/p/eu-parliament-abolish-adoptions-without-parental-consent/u/16651694
But when Police AND Social Services have TARGETS to meet, it’s all hardly surprising…
I wish Hollywood took an interest in these Real Life dramas, tragedies and crimes instead of serving us with illusions…
LikeLike
In my profound view.. it should be made LAW that ALL Professionals {including Judges} involved MUST act properly and produce accurate/true Reports/Statements/Judgements etc. or else they be fined or dismissed.
LikeLike
WOW!!!. Heracles had a far, far easier job in cleaning out the Phrygian stables. The Family Court system is infested with vested self-interest by those who collude and engage in confirmatory bias, in sending children into the familial anomie of State Care and adoption, and who order children into the custody or contact with parents who are dangerous, toxic, and abusive. And then try to give some credibility and legitimacy to their actions by attaching the label of “In the best interests of the child”, which is no more than a highly subjective value-judgement based on personal beliefs, values, and life experiences of those taking such decisions. Either way, suffer the little children.
I would suggest the following a worthy of consideration;
1. The Law relating to children should be child-centres and focussed on the Needs, Wishes, and Rights of the child;
2. The future care, welfare, and safety of children is far too important to continue to be determined in an archaic, antagonistic, acrimonious, adversarial arena which pitches parents against local authorities, and parents against each other and engendering high conflict between them. Family Courts must therefore be replaced by Inquisitorial Courts on a Families Tribunal model. There are several such models which can be examined as to their suitability, as in certain administrative proceedings or in other countries such as France;
3. The child should be given the right to be a party to the proceedings, if they wish, and to choose an adult delegate (not a `representative’) to express their views and wishes, if they lack the confidence and articulacy to present their views and wishes. Alternatively, they should have the opportunity to present Sworn Statements or to give their testimony by video-link. They should also have the right of appeal if the decisions taken are not considered by them to be in their best interests;
4. Children should be seen as competent witnesses at all stages of investigation and in the proceedings, and their testimony should be treated as credible and reliable. Whilst children can be confused in their recall of events, or may be susceptible to influence by others, and may on occasions fabricate information, they are no more liable to do so than adults. In fact children don’t have the resourcefulness and expertise to invent and fabricate evidence that many adults have;
5. All child related proceedings should be video-recorded and each of the parties provided a DVD copy at the end of each day’s proceedings, to check the evidence which has been given so they are able to raise matters emanating from such evidence. Parties are considerably grossly disadvantaged and handicapped by having to await transcripts of proceedings, and the very high costs, if they wish to mount an appeal;
6. Reports to Courts are noteworthy for including theories which have no basis in scientifically-conducted research (as in the case for example of Fabricated and Induced Illness in Children (Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy), Reflex Anal Dilatation, Repressed memory Syndrome, Satanic Ritual Abuse etc.) and which have caused many inappropriate and incorrect decisions in the past to the detriment of children. Despite warnings by a learned judge that it is unwise and unsafe to make decisions where there is disagreement between professional advisers, contentious theories are readily accepted without obtaining the views of professionals with contrary views. Where such reports are challenged by either party, then the reports should be submitted to eminent experts for a Forensic Appraisal Review and to a professional body to establish “the consensus views of the relevant professional community”. See Daubert Rules and Frye Test. Engaging a single expert in any proceedings leaves it open for professional bias and fanciful theorising to be taken seriously, as in the case of Sally Clarke, and Trupti Patel et al.
7. Finally, it is time to dispose of the term, “the Best Interests of the Child’, which frequently it is not, and for it to be replaced by a requirement that any decision regarding a child is provably, demonstrably and measurably to the benefit of the child and will protect the child from any future harm and exploitation.
Well that’s a little bit for the MPs to chew on, but what they must do is to ensure that children are provided with the safety and protection of the law, and of the Courts/Tribunals and there must be no compromise on that principle, no matter what vested interests of those engaged in the system are seeking to protect.
LikeLike
P.S. I would further suggest that child-related proceedings should be changed to a `No blame’ process as the divorce proceedings have been for over 40 years. In Care proceedings and in Custody proceedings the simple questions to be addressed are: 1. Has the child suffered any form of abuse and/or exploitation?. 2.Does the child need protection from any person in their immediate environment or otherwise.?.
This then focuses on the child’s welfare.
Allegations of abuse and violence should properly then be dealt with in the criminal courts.
LikeLike
Well despite my Ex husband having a Indefinite Restraining Order for Battery, he through his private Legal managed to obtain custody of the children six months ago while I sat back helplessly after fighting for six years and then losing Legal Aid. I have now not seen or spoken to my children in six months. They are six and nine. All they ever wanted was for the judge to listen and Social Services and the Nurture Leader to take them seriously. Instead they were disbelieved and removed. Sadly I think it’s going to take a miracle to turn this system around. A world where SS represents themselves would be amazing. Somehow I doubt it will ever happen. All I can do now is wait until they are older and deal with the damage when they are finally returned to me.
LikeLike
I’m so sorry. I can’t imagine how hard that must be, but I think you’re incredibly courageous. So many of you who comment are so graceful under the most difficult circumstances.
LikeLike
How abusive fathers are getting custody. http://abusersgettingcustody.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/this-is-how-fathers-are-winning-custody.html
LikeLike
I am going through family court now and find myself screaming inside as no-one is listening or looking at the facts. My ex has not been in my child’s life, she does not know him and we are a very happy family. I suffer with my mental health but pre-court this has always been managed. My ex has legal representation which is strange as he is on benefits and apparently no longer deals. The court have not questioned how he is paying his solicitor or why he suddenly shaved his hair after recommendations from cafcass advised drug testing which has now been disregarded as he says he cant afford it.
I think the law should be simple but accommodate for different situations, as every family is different. I fully support fathers who have been a solid and positive part of their children’s lives having access regardless of their relations or break down with the mother. But giving absent fathers who have not been a part of child’s life the same rights is not on. The Courts are under pressure and recent changes reflect this. The courts are not abiding to their own standards of the children first and this is unacceptable.Time frames to sort disputes are too short and not enough time is being spent on the best outcome for children in these proceedings.
There are decent mothers and decent fathers out there, maybe we should all start working together regardless of gender. I believe anyone can meet basic needs for food and clothing for a child and be a parent, yet it takes a certain love, patience and resillience to be an actual mother or father. I hope something changes soon.
LikeLike
Thank you so much for your comment. The system is terribly basic and finds it hard to process more sophisticated emotional dynamics. Wishing you luck during the process.
Please note we have had to remove your name due to reporting regulations, which we hope you’ll forgive.
LikeLike