Welcome to another week. A World War free week. For now.
As calls for transparency within the Family Courts continue, a growing number of questions raised by MPs in the House of Commons ask about the data available on these courts.
More often than not, the Ministry of Justice and other relevant departments are unable to provide this information, either due to what’s claimed to be a disproportionate cost in having to collect these stats, or simply because the data is not stored in the first place.
Much of the data not stored or efficiently recorded could be considered essential information.
A recent example of a written request asked for details about stalking and harassment orders issued from 2014-2015. Whilst data on the number of orders was available, the Minister responding confirmed that details about specific restrictions included in a restraining order was not held centrally and could only be obtained at an unreasonable cost.
The minister went on to say that there were also no stats on how frequently perpetrators of stalking and harassment try to contact their victims through action in the civil or family courts.
Freedom of Information requests made by the public and campaigners asking for data on orders, policy implementation and the impact of legislation often come back with little or no information.
However, the government does publish reports and bulletins which include data about things like legal aid, litigants in person and the numbers of certain types of orders issued.
Our question, is this: what kind of Family Court focused data would you like the government to produce, or do we have enough stats for the time being?
Judges ,lawyers,and bloggers love to talk about the merits or otherwise of “transparency in the family courts”.
I prefer to talk about the outrageous gagging of parents whose children have been removed by social services and their removal then rubberstamped by complacent judges in the courts.!
“Freedom of speech” is ignored both by the “SS” and by those calling for transparency alike.Can noone see how wicked it is to not only snatch a baby at birth from a law abiding mother but also to jail her if she protests openly about it on TV or via the Press?UK media would not dare to identify such mothers but foreign media can and often do so leaving the parents open to prosecution in the UK;
Time and again social workers tell these mums “you are not allowed to talk to anyone about this” and that of course is a lie.It is however true that parents cannot protest to the public or to “sections of the public” because that incredibly would be a breach of the privacy of the baby! They quote ECHR ARTICLE 8 giving us the right to a private family life .They use that, not to protect the family against intrusion by the State as was clearly intended but instead use it to protect the State from protests by families whose babies and young children have been taken on grounds that babies need privacy !!
You couldn’t make it up !
LikeLike
Thanks, FA. Not sure where you get the idea that people aren’t talking about issues surrounding gagging orders – this blog is full of posts on the issue, and countless other bloggers and campaigners also write on the topic. It’s largely thanks to these activists that gagging order style restrictions have come to light and have been fed through to the national media, as well as John Hemming, whom I worked with on this area. As for transparency, freedom of speech issues couldn’t have been exposed had it not been for the pressure to make the system more transparent, so it’s a necessary and fundamental first step to getting a problem out in the open. Data is part of that process, in my opinion, as it informs, highlights and galvanises – a triple threat when done right.
LikeLike
I made a FOI request to the MOJ in March 2016 asking:
How many children were made party to proceedings in Private Family Law cases in England and Wales during the following periods:
a. January 1st 2013 – 31st December 2013
b. January 1st 2014 – 31st December 2014
c. January 1st 2015 – 31st December 2015
I was directed to the Family Courts statistics table. If I recall, this does not fully capture this data – though I would need to re-visit to be sure.
I also asked:
In how many Private Family Law cases in England and Wales were Children’s Guardians appointed during the following periods:
a. January 1st 2013 – 31st December 2013
b. January 1st 2014 – 31st December 2014
c. January 1st 2015 – 31st December 2015
The response was that the electronic case management system used for administering private law family cases may not hold all of the information, that the information will be recorded on case files held locally at the courts and in order to extract and record the data each court would have to check the private law files individually – the cost would be prohibitive.
My interest was for research purposes as well as professional concerns arising out of my work as an Expert in Family Proceedings. In many of the cases in which I am instructed, in my opinion, a Guardian is appointed much too late in the day or not at all where I feel they should have been.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment, Sue.
LikeLike
There are, so we are told, lies, damned lies – and statistics. When people seek the truth they do not expect the degree of obfuscation that is currently operating on those official channels down which people are directed, and along which they have to travel, finding, in too many cases that the journey is a thankless round of endless wandering after being sent on too many wild-goose-chases.
A bit like the current case before parliament; it seems the prime minister is indulging in creating a smoke-screen round the reported malfunction of a Trident missile – did she, or did she not know about the matter? It is a question, hanging like the sword of Damacles, that’s waiting for an answer. Honesty still remains the best policy; for eventually the truth emerges. The longer it hangs concealed then, like putrefying flesh, the stronger will be the reaction to the stench.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
There are, so we are told, lies, damned lies – and statistics. When people seek the truth they do not expect the degree of obfuscation that is currently operating on those official channels down which people are directed, and along which they have to travel, finding, in too many cases that the journey is a thankless round of endless wandering after being sent on too many wild-goose-chases.
A bit like the current case before parliament; it seems the prime minister is indulging in creating a smoke-screen round the reported malfunction of a Trident missile – did she, or did she not know about the matter? It is a question, hanging like the sword of Damacles, that’s waiting for an answer. Honesty still remains the best policy; for eventually the truth emerges. The longer it hangs concealed then, like putrefying flesh, the stronger will be the reaction to the stench.
LikeLike
My point is that going for transparency is a waste of time as even if the family courts were open to the public only those directly concerned would attend these painfully boring procédures.
No gagging orders are necessary to gag parents deprived of their kids as the flagrant misinterpretation of article 8 gags parents automatically and nobody but nobody talks about the calloust misuse of article 8 ECHR that does the trick for the “SS”!
Any parent whose child has been taken should be free to protest via the media and the media should be free to identify both parents and children if the parents so wish.Freedom of speech should be sacrosant as the laws re slander and libel penalise those who misuse free speech but does NOT prevent anyone from saying what they like without threats of jail.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
i think the digital audio/video recordings of family court hearings should be stored and made available to parents or anyone else who feels they have a right to see them.
LikeLiked by 1 person