• 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

Daily Archives: October 13, 2017

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...

America Trials Online Reporting Of Child Abuse

13 Friday Oct 2017

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

≈ 3 Comments

In order to deal with the backlog of calls Los Angeles County gets about allegations of child abuse, it has decided to pilot a new system which will allow for the reporting of some of these allegations to be online. 

Online reporting is not available to everyone, and can only be used by what California calls mandated reporters. These are individuals working in professions which are required by law to report any suspicions they have about child abuse. The law places a legal responsibility on these individuals to report suspicions or allegations. It is a law we don’t currently have in the UK, but it is being considered in a consultation which was launched in 2016. (We sent a tweet last night to the Department For Education to find out when the findings would be published).

Consultation

The online reporting system is meant only for what the county calls ‘non-emergency’ child abuse, the idea being that life threatening and serious abuse can be dealt with faster as they become prioritised over less ‘urgent’ forms of abuse.

Here is an interesting extract from the article in The Chronicle Of Social Change:

Located south of downtown at the DCFS Emergency Response Command Post, Child Protection Hotline fielded nearly 219,000 calls of child abuse in 2016.

That’s an average of one call every 2.4 minutes to the hotline, which is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The total number of child abuse reports in 2016, according to DCFS documents, represented an increase of 22 percent over 2006, when about 179,000 were placed to the hotline.

According to a DCFS report, the increased number of calls to the hotline has been caused by several factors. Media attention paid to high-profile cases of abuse and neglect have driven more reports, and DCFS now has new responsibilities to field calls for groups like older foster youth and commercially sexually exploited children (who were previously were overseen by the Probation Department).

The process for using the online reporting system involves fielding calls within a framework designed firstly to work out which cases should be investigated, through a series of ten questions.

If the case meets the criteria, it will then be investigated right away, or a social worker is dispatched to follow up with the child within five days. This latter part concerns us quite a bit. We know child abuse can escalate over night, so a five day waiting period seems incredibly reckless.

If any of the mandated reporters answer yes to any one or more of the ten questions, which include queries like, is the child’s health at risk and does the alleged perpetrator have access to the child? then the report is barred from being made online and will have to be filed through the emergency hotline.

 

There are suggestions that the system is helping to free up the hotline and speed up responses to cases involving critical abuse.

We’d love to hear your thoughts on this pilot.

stop

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

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

Join 8,452 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 813 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: