With the news that the current President Of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, is set to step down next year, speculation will soon mount as to who will succeed him.
Munby’s decision to retire appears to stem from deep disappointment over the lack of progress inside the Family Court during his time as President. In a recent interview, he told The Law Gazette that there was “depressingly little to show for over two years’ hard pounding”.
Enter Justice McFarlane, an appeal court judge who works on Family Law cases, and who has recently begun to produce highly political judgments and calls to action urging improvements inside the system.
His provocative speech to the Family Justice Council earlier this month, where he called on the government to rethink the country’s adoption policy, and his overtly political judgments, which he is using to highlight problems inside the Family Courts (like this judgment where McFarlane talks about the lack of resources for social work teams and the impact this is having on adoption decisions), are efforts at amplifying his own voice, as well as the courts’, and though he is less polished and considered than the President (see this awkward generalisation about mothers, which reads like an attempt to get fathers on side), there is more than a little of Munby’s outspoken style in McFarlane’s approach.
He’s clearly taking part in sector politics, too. Whilst his comments about the shake up of the adoption process will appeal to families who are going through child protection hearings and desperately trying to fight for support to keep their children, McFarlane is trying to tread a fine line between gaining the public’s trust and reassuring child welfare professionals he is ‘on their side’. That balancing act is evident in both his speech to the Council and his comments to the media. Whether he would have the courage to call out appalling acts of misconduct and highlight the less than ethical practices inside the system in the often direct and unflinching way Munby did, remains to be seen.
Whilst the new President of The Family Division won’t be announced until next year, we’ll be watching McFarlane. Let us know your thoughts on who you think might replace Lord Munby in 2018.
Lord Justice McFarlane
Sir Andrew McFarlane was called to the Bar in 1977 and practiced in chambers in Birmingham until 1993 when he moved to specialist family law chambers in London. He appeared at all levels of court including the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights. He was appointed as a QC in 1998. In April 2005 he was appointed to the High Court, Family Division and was for 5 years the Family Division Liaison Judge for the Midland Circuit. He was the legal member of the Government ‘Family Justice Review’ Panel.
He was appointed as a Lord Justice of Appeal in July 2011 and now sits full time in the Court of Appeal in London.
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Reblogged this on No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death!.
LikeLike
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
It doesn’t seem to matter who’s President.
We got it from his office: Sir James can’t interfere with Justice Macfarlane’s jugment to refuse an appeal – on the papers – without the parents EVER being given a chance of an ethical and fair oral hearing.
As former MP John Hemming said: there’s no accountability. There’s only policy.
And that includes “it’s up to individual judges.”
They are a Law upon themselves and can’t be challenged.
May their conscience rest in peace, while social media are our only ‘tools to challenge’.
LikeLiked by 2 people
S Loveridge said:
I suppose my only consolation is that [edited] has retired and cannot make any more ridiculous statements in her Judgements- statements that are clinically factually ridiculously unsound
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tim Haines said:
Big Mac would make a great president! Even when he’s Mac the Knife!
LikeLike
tummum said:
I would like to see the proposed research done from ones not necessarily employed ‘within’ the system to make it fair with clarity so it’s more transparent. I would like to hope the parents, natural parents and their families get to have their voices heard finally because they’re all the ones who have experienced the horrors and potential miscarriages of justice. Then i believe we would maybe all have a clearer idea? xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
tummum said:
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog and commented:
What are your views? xx
LikeLike
Richard Grenville said:
Its going to take an immensely strong President to drag the Family Court judiciary and the legal profession kicking and screaming out of the 19th Century and slow down their gravy train from Family Court work. So far, they have been completely immoveable against the strongest forces, including public opinion.
LikeLike
Forced Adoption said:
As long as we allow and support” punishment(eg forced adoption) without crime” we cannot claim to be civilised.
LikeLiked by 2 people
keith said:
Very true Mr J.
LikeLiked by 1 person
truthaholics said:
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Venture-capital policy is unjust and has led to too many instances of state impunity in family and social care. The time to overhaul this aberration is long overdue!
“finolamoss on 14 March 2017 at 10:20 said:
When we have at least 80% of care applications successful, resulting in children removed to a not fit for purpose care system, do we really need all these bodies being paid well to rubber stamp a ‘culture of urgency’ ?
We must ask why adoption/fostering has been effectively the flag ship policy of Blair and Cameron, and why courts are and have particularly for the past 20 years decided placing in an unfit care system, is indeed in a child’s best interests or now in their ‘welfare’.
We must also ask why from 700 per month in 2010 care applications are up to over 1600 per month.
And why other than Portugal we are the only country to deracinate children from their own flesh and blood for ever, often with few decent outcomes which are not checked.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
“We must also ask why from 700 per month in 2010 care applications are up to over 1600 per month.”
An investigation would be the only logical next step.
Adoption is clearly the driving force behind this rapid rise in removals and Money can be the only explanation for this rogue runaway train that is clearly out of control and on a collision course to oblivion .
LikeLiked by 2 people
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rebecca Gaffney said:
without a doubt Lord Justice Mcfarlane should become the President it will be a very bad future if the likes of a certain Lady appeal judge are chosen mentioning no names she is very known for her refusal of permission to appeal without hearing and has led it appears the permission stage it would seem for some time now
LikeLike
keith said:
What about Justice Pauffley. she exposed the corruption between Social workers and Judges unlawfully removing children and stated it is widespread across the country.
could she be a powerful tool for change as President ?
LikeLiked by 1 person
[Name Withheld] said:
Justice Pauffley was quite wrong in regard to me she made a 15 year gagging order without even giving me notice and i later went on to have it varied as it was very non sensical but she listened to the social worker and ordered a very harsh injunction without my side to the real situation.
LikeLike
keith said:
i suppose none of them are perfect and Sir James Mundy will bound to have also made damaging decisions in some cases where parents didnt like it but thats how it goes. sweet and sour.
LikeLike
keith said:
“Munby’s decision to retire appears to stem from deep disappointment over the lack of progress inside the Family Court during his time as President. In a recent interview, he told The Law Gazette that there was “depressingly little to show for over two years’ hard pounding”.
its disappointing Sir Munby is throwing the towel in just because if this. he could make his “pounding” a lot more effective if he rallied public support for change. he could launch a petition or wrote to the prime minister to take action.look what just happened with the U turn on Ni contributions.
theres a famous line from President Roosevelt to his defence staff after the attack on Pearl Harbor when he struggles and stands up from his wheelchair.
“Do not tell me, it cant be done!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Childcare Proceedings Exposed said:
Reblogged this on Child Care Proceedings Exposed.
LikeLike
julia said:
I HOPE WHO EVER TAKES OVER FROM SIR JAMES MUNBY. WILL LISTEN TO THE FAMILIES I MY SELF HAVE MADE COMPLAINTS THROUGH THE LOCAL AUTHORITY COMPLAINTS PROCESS AND HAVE HAD AREAS OF THE COMPLAINTS UP HELD THIS HAS TAKEN ME 3YR’S AND 4 MONTHS SO FAR. I HAVE USED THE DATA PROTECTION AND DATA RETENTION LAWS TO GET EVERTHING WRITTEN ABOUT MY FAMILY MEMBERS AND CAN NOW EVIDENCE THE INCORRECT INFORMATION USED IN OUR CASE BUT I AM TOLD I AM OUT OF TIME TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES DECISIONS HOW IS THIS ALLOWED IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
I CAN EVIDENCE THAT THE SOCIAL WORKERS NEVER KEPT UPTO DATE AND ACCURATE RECORDS THIS WAS UPHELD IN MY SECOND STAGE COMPLAINT I GOT A TONGUE IN CHEEK APOLOGIE FROM A SENIOR SOCIAL WORKER BUT HE NEVER INVESTIGATED THE RECORDS OR HAVE THEM CORRECTED IF ORDINARY PEOPLE WENT INTO A COURT AND LIED WE WOULD FACE A CRIMINAL CHARGE YET THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS IF THIS COUNTRY REALLY WANTS TO PROTECT ITS CHILDREN THEN THE CARE SYSTEM NEEDS A MAJOR SHAKE UP AND SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD BE MADE TO USE UP TO DATE ACCURATE RECORDS AS IT STATES IN THEIR CODES OF PRACTICE. LOCAL AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE INVESTIGATED COMPLETELY INDEPENDENTLY AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE THEIR OWN PRACTICE OR IT CAN NEVER CHANGE AS NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE AS PEOPLE HAVE LITTLE OR NO CHANCE TO GET LEGAL AID THE FAMILIES HAVE NO RIGHTS TO FAIR JUSTICE
LikeLiked by 1 person
keith said:
“I AM OUT OF TIME TO CHALLENGE THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES DECISIONS HOW IS THIS ALLOWED IN THIS DAY AND AGE”
Very well said Julia.
this is only happening because our Govt, courts and police allows it to happen. you have to remember that it was the Govt who were paying large incentives to Local authorities to move as many children as possible from foster care into Adoption as it was saving the Govt millions of pounds and although this was officially abolished in 2009 i think we all know it will still be going in the shadows of Govt funding. this is why they dont want to go after corrupt LAs. they are hand in glove with eachother. So how do we change things. Well by constant uproar and protecting against it. thats the only way anything will ever change.
A Trump style shake up is whats really needed in the UK corridors of power but as with the USA establishment our Govt will try to counter it very aggressively. the truth is, the only chance of a good future is when the power goes back to the people.
the powers of Govt will never operate in the best interests of the general public.only for their own kind. the very wealthy & educated kind.
LikeLike
family court support said:
There are many problems within an arrogant system that does not allow sufficient time to deal with cases justly, an over-adherence to the over riding objective, financial problems related to the funding of court time led politically, a complete mix of good, bad and ugly judiciary who are protected by an arrogant appeal system which like any complaint procedure is designed to cover up and a lack of public interest in the family justice system….need i say more
LikeLike
dr. manhattan62 said:
i dont think its so much a lack of public interest but more a lack of awareness among the public. most people on the street just dont know what goes on within the SS and the Family Courts.
LikeLike
Tim Haines said:
For the record: Munby P is not retiring because he has been unable to achieve his goals: it’s a matter of compulsory retirement because of his age. I heard him state this clearly at the Voice of the Child conference, which I attended last year.
LikeLike
Pingback: Lord Justice McFarlane, “A barrister wouldn’t tell a lie.” | Researching Reform
Pingback: Munby And McFarlane Go Head To Head Over Family Court Presidency | Researching Reform
Pingback: McFarlane Confirmed As New Family Court President | Researching Reform