• About
    • Privacy Policy
  • GSW
  • Guide To Making A Subject Access Request
  • In Dad’s Shoes
    • An Overview
    • Invitation
    • Media
    • Photos
    • Press Release
    • Soft Launch
    • Speeches
    • Summary
  • Media Coverage
  • Parliamentary Debates
  • Voice of the Child Podcasts

Researching Reform

Researching Reform

Monthly Archives: October 2017

President Calls For Investigation Into Covert Recordings In Family Court Cases

31 Tuesday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in Family Law, Researching Reform, Voice of the Child

≈ 8 Comments

The President Of The Family Division has called on the Family Justice Council to look into the use of audio and video recordings obtained by parties going through the family courts. Sir James Munby made the request in a judgment published on 18th October. 

The case before Munby was an appeal which threw up the issue of covert recordings used within the family courts, their admissibility and the lack of guidance in this area for family professionals and the parties themselves. Parties in family court cases sometimes record events or conversations in secret, to show wrongdoing when there is no other way of proving fault.

Key parts of the judgment are added below:

“The courts have had to grapple with the legal and procedural issues generated by the stool-pigeon, the eavesdropper and the concealed observer since time immemorial. Since the second half of the nineteenth century the courts have had to grapple, and keep up, with the legal and procedural issues generated by the invention of technologies for the audio or visual recording of events.

On one level there is nothing very new about this. Thus, the covert filming or video-recording of personal injury or benefits claimants suspected of fraud has been an established and acceptable practice for many years. But in the family courts the issue has become much more pressing in recent years.
There are, I suspect, two reasons for this. One is the ever increasing sophistication and miniaturisation and at the same time ever decreasing cost of modern recording equipment. For anyone possessed of a smartphone or similar piece of ‘kit’, surreptitious audio recording or filming of events is child’s play.

The other, I fear, has to do with the widespread distrust in too many quarters of the competence or even the integrity of the family justice system and of the professionals involved in it. Here, of course, it is the existence of the mindset rather than its foundation in reality which is the driving force. But it does give rise to important questions of public policy.

That said, it needs to be accepted, with honesty and candour, that there have been in recent years in the family courts shocking examples of professional malpractice which have been established only because of the covert recording of the relevant individual.
It is important to distinguish between open recording and covert recording. In the nature of things, it is the latter which is more problematic. Without seeking to establish a complete taxonomy, there are at a least three categories of covert recording, each of which may raise a variety of different issues: covert recording of children, covert recording of other family members, and covert recording of professionals.
Whatever the nature of the recording, a number of issues are likely to arise.

Again without any pretence to completeness it is obvious that questions may arise as to: (i) the lawfulness of what has been done;

(ii) best practice outside the court room as it were; (iii) the admissibility of the recording in evidence; and

(iv) a variety of other evidential and practice issues (for example, as to how the recording is to be put in evidence, problems in relation to sound and picture quality, and, in particular, disputes as to authenticity – who are the people who can be heard or seen on the recording, has the recording been edited or ‘cut and spliced’? – which may necessitate calling expert evidence).

Furthermore, in relation to all this it may be important to identify who is doing the recording and why. Covert surveillance and recording by the police and other agencies, including the Security Service, which in current conditions not infrequently impinges upon the family courts, is one thing. Covert surveillance and recording by others may – I put the point no higher, it being a matter for another day – raise rather different issues.

I draw attention to these matters to show that covert recording in the context of the family courts potentially involves a myriad of issues, very few of which, despite all the judgments to which I have referred, have, even now, been systematically considered either at first instance or in this court.

I propose therefore, as a first step, to invite the Family Justice Council, which as a multi-disciplinary body is particularly suited to undertake the task, to consider the whole question of covert recording from a multi-disciplinary viewpoint.”

Using his signature blend of diplomacy (make of that what you will), Munby uses the public judgment once more to raise awareness of problems inside the system and invite investigation. Researching Reform hopes that when the time comes, parents, researchers, and activists will all contribute to the consultation. We most certainly will.

recorded-speech

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question It!

30 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

Welcome to another week.

The Nuffield Foundation has just published its research looking at the impact on parties of having to choose grounds for divorce before being able to process a divorce application.

Their report, which was produced by Professor Liz Trinder, Caroline Bryson, Susan Purdon, Penny Mansfield and Lester Coleman, suggests that the current divorce process encourages dishonesty, causes unnecessary pain and suffering for children and their families and ultimately undermines the aims of the family justice system. The research calls on the government to implement no fault divorce, which is broadly favoured by family lawyers and legal groups such as Resolution.

Amongst some of the report’s findings, is that being forced to choose a ground for divorce leads to parties having to exaggerate claims about bad behaviour or adultery. This, the Nuffield Foundation suggests, invites partners to lie and sets the tone for more dishonesty throughout the process. The report’s researchers go on to call for a complete rehaul of the divorce process.

Our question this is week then, is just this: what else inside the system do you think encourages dishonesty, not just between parents but family professionals too?

You can read the report in full here. 

The Commons Library also has a Briefing Paper on No Fault Divorce. 

Gates_of_Divorce.jpg

 

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

In The News

26 Thursday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in News, Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

Child welfare stories that should be right on your radar:

  • Paedophiles who view child abuse images could escape prosecution because of ‘breathtaking’ scale of offending, police chief suggests
  • Rochdale council leader denies knowledge of child abuse and accuses colleague of lying
  • African Leaders Pledge To End Child Marriage In West, Central Africa By 2030 At International Conference

boy-reading-newspaper-new-001

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Council Put Children’s Lives At Risk To Cut Costs

25 Wednesday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform, social work

≈ 14 Comments

A whistleblower who worked as a social worker for Worcestershire County Council, has called out the local authority for its unethical practices which placed children’s lives in danger. 

The whistleblower, who was part of the council’s failing children’s services team, says the local authority prioritised cuts above everything else, and bullied and intimidated social workers who refused to put quantity before quality when it came to preparing child protection assessments.

Further claims made by the former social worker include:

• That “stressed and tired” social workers were exploited – with some working 25 hours without pay, on top of their contracted hours.

• Several social workers were going on sick leave due to stress.

• One social worker went to work with a broken hand, afraid of the consequences of not meeting a deadline.

• A social worker dealing with 40 cases – more than the maximum which is meant to be 18.

• Social workers being told to ignore producing quality work and encouraged to assess children quickly.

• If social workers refused to disregard quality, “they were belittled”.

The article goes on to suggest that the council is trying ‘really hard’ to address these allegations and that monitoring body Ofsted has since acknowledged improvements made, but this begs the question – how is the council going about making these changes if there are no extra resources available?

Researching Reform does not think this is the only council in England and Wales implementing this policy or encouraging a culture of bullying within child protection teams. We very much hope more whistleblowers from other councils will come forward.

Many thanks to Michele Simmons for alerting us to this story.

WCC.png

 

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

LANDMARK RULING: Foster Children Can Now Sue Local Authorities For Abuse

19 Thursday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, child welfare, Researching Reform

≈ 50 Comments

A Supreme Court ruling which has overturned previous precedent and made history, will now allow children abused whilst in foster care to sue the local authorities that placed them.

Those who have been abused, as well as child rights campaigners all over the country who have fought tirelessly to establish this duty of care which should have been acknowledged a long time ago, will be delighted by the ruling.

The case which came before the Supreme Court saw Natasha Armes, now 40, from Nottingham, win against Nottinghamshire County Council after Supreme Court justices ruled by a majority of four-to-one that it was liable for abuse she suffered as a child 30 years ago.

The Supreme Court justices found the local authority was vicariously liable for the abuse Natasha suffered at the hands of her foster parents, but bizarrely, concluded that the council was not negligent in choosing or supervising them, even though the local authority had recruited, selected and trained the foster parents, paid for their expenses and supervised the fostering.

Nevertheless, the decision now means that councils can be held liable for abuse committed by foster carers, whether recent or non recent.

The key part of the judgment connects foster parents with the local authority:

“Although the picture presented is not without complexity, nevertheless when considered as a whole it points toward the conclusion that the foster parents provided care to the child as an integral part of the local authority’s organisation of its child care services.”

An incredibly encouraging development, and hats off to the justices involved in this case, who had the courage to do what needed to be done. We can guess which judges were involved.

The legal relatiosnhip between local authorities and foster carers was always there. Today, the law has closed a terrible loophole that claimed the lives of far too many children, and took the childhoods of countless more. We very much hope local authorities will now be looking at their recruiting procedures and finding ways to make them much, much more secure.

You can read the judgment and press summary here.

Abuse

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Father’s Facebook Video Calling For Social Services Reform Goes Viral

19 Thursday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 12 Comments

A father whose daughter was taken from him by social services, but was later reunited after fighting for her in court, has uploaded a Facebook video calling for an investigation into forced adoption. 

The Facebook live video showed the father protesting outside council offices in Grays. The video attracted an astounding 25,000 views.

So who was behind the footage?

Dad, Jack Barnes, who calls himself a child rights campaigner and goes by the hashtag #scousemegaphoneman, a nod to his own personal brand of campaigning in which he uses a megaphone to amplify his protests.

Jack’s daughter was taken away from him by social services at Thurrock Council in 2012. After an intense ten months in court fighting for her return, he was eventually reunited with his daughter and is now campaigning for Thurrock Council to reform its social services department.

Keen to look at the problems within social work on a nationwide scale, Jack also hopes to encourage the sector to amplify the voice of the child in all care proceedings so that their wishes and feelings are properly set down, and heard.

Jack, and his signature red cap will be campaigning again outside Thurrock’s Civic Offices during National Adoption Week.

jackbarnes.jpg.gallery

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

The Buzz

18 Wednesday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform, The Buzz

≈ 4 Comments

The news stories that should be right on your radar:

  • Association of Directors of Children’s Services calls for review of local authority child protection obligations
  • Durham chief constable on child abuse images online
  • Indian 12-year-old to get an international prize for spreading education

boy-reading-newspaper-new-001

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

BBC’s Today Programme And Researching Reform On Children’s Right To Speak To Judges

17 Tuesday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 17 Comments

BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme this morning focuses on children’s right to speak with family law judges. Researching Reform had the privilege of talking with Sanchia Berg about the policy, what happened to it and why it was needed.

The piece includes thoughts from a boy called Oscar, who says he feels children should have the right to speak to judges and that it would make the process more friendly.

An extract from our conversation can be heard at around 0:52:00 over on BBC Radio 4’s live player, and the accompanying article on the topic can be read here.

For a summary of this policy, and its development over the last ten years, our Lexis Nexis article offers a complete history.

Many thanks to Sanchia for inviting us to share our thoughts.

Court cases children

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

What Happened To The Government’s Child Welfare Consultations? RR Finds Out.

16 Monday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Consultation, Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

Welcome to another week.

Instead of our usual Monday question, we decided to share our latest Freedom Of Information Request, reminding the government that it still has outstanding child welfare consultation outcomes it needs to publish.

After we discovered that the current government had chosen to ignore the consultation looking at children in family court proceedings being able to speak to judges, Researching Reform felt a formal update on other outstanding consultations was needed.

This was our letter to the Department For Education:

FOI Roundup

We will let you know as soon as we get a response.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Open Letter To Cafcass & NSPCC On The Eve Of Families Need Fathers Conference

13 Friday Oct 2017

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform

≈ 25 Comments

Legal Action For Women and Women Against Rape, have written an open letter to Cafcass and the NSPCC a day before they are due to take part in a Families Need Fathers Conference looking at Parental Alienation.

The letter invites the organisations to withdraw from the event, where representatives have been asked to speak.

The letter is added below:

OPEN LETTER to CAFCASS and NSPCC re your PARTICIPATION in a conference run by FAMILIES NEED FATHERS (FNF)
Saturday 14 October

We understand that you are speaking at this FNF conference on parental alienation. You must be aware that FNF have consistently attacked women.

Must we refresh your memory? As long ago as 1994, during a debate on the Child Support Agency, MP Glenda Jackson reported in Parliament that FNF advised fathers who were not allowed access to their children to ‘kidnap them. If that failed and nothing else could succeed, it advocated the murder of the mother.’ Recently we helped a father re-introduce contact with his child. He had previously gone to FNF and was horrified when their facilitators described the whole system as stacked against men, and kept referring to ‘feminist Nazis’. He said they promote and perpetuate misogyny and refused to go back.

FNF deny domestic violence, dismissing it as false allegations. They claim that ‘False and unfounded allegations poison proceedings when a non-resident parent is seeking parenting time with his children. Judges need to make findings of fact as soon as possible and to take false allegations into account when determining the best interests of the child.’ FNF claim that ‘there is widespread abuse of men and boys in the context of the family courts’ and accuse women of ‘making allegations’ as ‘a motorway to obtaining legal aid’.

Such claims are totally outrageous. Surely you know that:

  • One in five women aged 16-59 have suffered sexual violence in England and Wales;[1] two women a week are murdered by a partner or ex-partner; one in four women have been subjected to domestic violence in their lifetime; 81% of victims of domestic violence are women; domestic violence has a higher rate of repeat victimisation than any other crime; 62% of children in households where domestic violence is happening are also directly harmed;[2] 50% of rapes are domestic. The level of false allegations of rape is less than 1% and less than 0.5% for domestic violence, both are much lower than false allegations for other crimes.[3]
  • Family courts have allowed violent fathers (even when they have a criminal record for violence) to terrify, threaten and intimidate those they had victimised and who managed to escape them. These legal standards would never be tolerated in an open court. Judges have insisted on contact and even residence, dismissing what women and children were telling them. Nineteen children and two mothers were killed between 2005 and 2015 following court orders to allow fathers unsupervised contact. (WA)
  • FNF have the view that fathers who are estranged from their children have the same rights as mothers who do the daily work of caring and protecting them. That is the traditional patriarchal view by which children and their mothers are men’s property for them to do what they want with. No organisation or charity which gets public funds, especially ones that claim to speak for children, should give credence to such views.
    We hope you will reconsider your participation in this conference.

Legal Action for Women and Women Against Rape

law@allwomencount.net  war@womenagainstrape.net

[1] An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales, Ministry of Justice, Office for National Statistics and Home Office, 2013

[2] http://www.refuge.org.uk/get-help-now/what-is-domestic-violence/domestic-violence-the-facts/ quoting various ONS and Home Office sources

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/13/rape-investigations-belief-false-accusations

Untitled design.png

UPDATE: Shortly after we published this post, Families Need Fathers contacted us and tried, unsuccessfully, to upload their response to the letter. We add their response, which they emailed to us, below:

“It is evident that the authors of this letter do not know Families Need Fathers as well as the contributors to this event do. We are a reputable registered charity that engages constructively with relevant and distinguished stakeholders to discuss important issue relating to children’s welfare following family separation. We promote the clause of the UNCRC that children have a right to a relationship with both their parents, unless there is a welfare reason otherwise. We look forward to a successful conference tomorrow.”

UPDATE, 15th October, 2017: Legal Action For Women has sent Researching Reform an email with links offering evidence to qualify their statements.

“FNF’s use of the phrase “feminist Nazis” was reported to us by a father who had gone to them for help but stayed only for one meeting because he was so horrified by their attitude to women/mothers.   It is a direct quote from him, but obviously we can’t pass on his name.

The first quote is from a FNF press release dated 12 September 2017: Lies, Damned Lies and False Allegations!  See top paragraph.

The other quotes are from their press release dated 27 July 2017: CAFCASS Betrays the Trust of Fathers – see paragraphs 2 and 5.”

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...
← Older posts

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

Join 8,460 other subscribers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

October 2017
M T W T F S S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
« Sep   Nov »

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
  • Voice of the Child
  • Voice of the Child Podcast
  • Westminster Debate
  • Who's Who Cabinet Ministers
  • 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

  • Follow Following
    • Researching Reform
    • Join 814 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Researching Reform
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: