• 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: November 9, 2017

The Hidden Agenda Behind Westminster’s Debate On Family Justice Reform

09 Thursday Nov 2017

Posted by Natasha in event, Family Law, Researching Reform

≈ 23 Comments

A debate in Westminster looking at family justice reform is to take place on Wednesday 15th November, but its underlying agenda is likely to disappoint serious reformers and raise eyebrows, too.

Whilst very little information has been offered about this debate – we still don’t know who organised or sponsored it, what the full list of topics will be and who will be attending – there are some clues on the event’s page over at the Parliament website. We have also received information from a Families Needs Fathers Cymru representative which sheds further light on the real agenda behind the debate.

The politician hosting the event is Suella Fernandes MP,  who is the Conservative MP for Fareham. A former member of the Education Committee, she now sits on the Education, Skills and the Economy Sub-Committee, which looks at ways in which education can boost the economy.

Suella was also on the Draft Investigatory Powers Bill (Joint Committee). The Bill, which was ratified in 2016, came to be known as The Snooper’s Charter, for its invasive surveillance powers.

Suella’s voting record is interesting too.

She has consistently voted against laws to promote and protect people’s human rights, and any investigation into the Iraq war.

Relevant to the debate itself, she is an outspoken advocate for a presumption of shared parenting, and campaigns on Fathers’ Rights issues. Her work is supported by Families Need Fathers, though it’s not clear whether she feels the same way about the Fathers’ Rights organisation.

Suella appears to have become vocal about Fathers’ Rights around March of this year, writing for news outlets like The Times, and sponsoring the Family Justice Bill in that same month. The Bill’s aim was to make Child Arrangement Orders enforceable and to establish a presumption of shared parenting in law. It was ultimately set aside during the general election, but Suella never made any attempt to revive it after the Conservatives won.

She also used the Ten Minute Rule to introduce the Bill. As politicians and researchers will tell you, this makes the Bill nothing more than a soundbite, and is not considered a serious attempt at passing a law. We wonder whether Suella was upfront about this tactic, whilst appealing to angry and often desperate fathers willing to champion anyone showing an interest in their cause. Even if that someone might be an opportunist looking to bag a share of the votes.

It’s a sentiment not lost on some Families Need Fathers campaigners. One FNF post which featured another one of Suella’s soundbites, this time from her newspaper article on Fathers Rights, hosts a series of comments from FNF supporters. One comment, from Jo Woodage, reads:

Woodage

Suella never acknowledged the post or offered a response.

Coming back to the debate itself, a briefing paper is going to be made available at some point, though no time frame is given for its publication. The page does explain that if you’d like to be alerted when the briefing paper is published, you can email the team to request a notification.

As for the topics that are going to be discussed, five potential themes are listed as tags right at the bottom of the page. They are: Civil partnerships, Cohabitation, Divorce, Family law, Marriage. There are Briefings Papers listed too, which focus on contact and residence, no fault divorce, prenuptial agreements and cohabitation.

FNF Cymru seem to have much more detailed information on what the debate will actually focus on, lending fuel to the fire that Families Need Fathers have had a large hand in this event. The FNF Cymru page’s update suggests that the following topics will be discussed:

· The need for a presumption of shared parenting
· The enforcement of child arrangement orders
· No-fault divorce
· The enforceability of prenuptial agreements
· Rights of cohabiting couples
· Opening up family courts

And at the bottom of the post, we are told: “We [FNF Cymru] have provided quite a lot of input to Suella on this. Please encourage your MP to attend.”

Suella F

The debate coincides with a report released recently by the Nuffield Foundation which invites the government to consider no fault divorce, as well as a report entitled A Manifesto To Strengthen Families, which was produced by the Conservatives. The recommendations in the manifesto are typical of what you might expect from the party. They focus on ways to bolster conventional marriage through financial incentives as a way to lessen economic burdens on the state, which Tories believe are brought on by a rising trend in cohabitation.

If the debate is heavily populated by Conservative MPs, it’s bound to be nothing more than an effort at ensuring policy around couples focuses on boosting conventional marriage. This could potentially turn the clock back fifty years, in much the same way that Brexit and the government’s other disastrous policies have done. That the Conservatives, and Suella, may have used the Fathers Rights movement to prop up their debate is something FNF campaigners will have to decide for themselves.

As a Westminster Hall Debate the event will take place in the Grand Committee Room, one of the rooms Researching Reform uses for its Westminster Debates and so the debate should be open to the public.

It will be interesting to see who will be speaking at this event, and what the briefing paper has to offer, too.

We’ll keep you posted.

A very big thank you to DadsHouse for alerting us to this debate, and to Paul Apreda for kindly sharing information about Families Need Fathers’ support for this event.

FNF Suella.png

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Is The Council Who Placed Toddler Elsie Liable For Her Murder?

09 Thursday Nov 2017

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

≈ 18 Comments

The terrible story of Elsie, a toddler killed by her adoptive father, has understandably caused outrage, but a deeper issue lies at the heart of this distressing case which suggests that the council who placed her could be to blame for her death.

Matthew Scully-Hicks, Elsie’s adoptive father, was jailed for life this week with a minimum term of 18 years for murdering the 18-month-old toddler.

Elsie’s biological family fought to take care of Elsie before she was eventually adopted. Her birth grandmother, Sian O’Brien, launched proceedings in the family court to become her legal guardian when she was two months old, but was turned down because social services said she would not be able to cope. Ms O’Brien was already looking after Elsie’s two teenage siblings, and felt that it would be best for the children if they were all together.

There is no indication from any media reports that social services considered offering Ms O’Brien help so that the children could be together, despite this being a required consideration before taking the frowned upon step of separating siblings.

And yet, despite the adoption, the family had hoped that Elsie would be returned to their care. They were not informed of her death until four months after she had been murdered.

Elsie’s grandmother, speaking about the case:

“A person who had been deemed by the authorities to be a fit and proper person to bring up my granddaughter was responsible for her death, and they took her from me telling me I would be unable to cope.”

Scully-Hicks will now be sent to prison for the fatal injuries he inflicted and an independent review will examine the circumstances of Elsie’s death and whether social workers and doctors could have prevented it, but another more pressing question is being ignored. Is the local authority who placed Elsie with her adoptive parents also responsible for her death?

A recent landmark ruling suggests it may be.

In October of this year, the Supreme Court made history by confirming that local authorities were vicariously liable for children suffering abuse at the hands of their foster parents. Whilst the ruling distanced itself from connecting the local authority’s pivotal role in recruiting, selecting and training the foster parents to any duty of care, the judgment makes it clear that councils who “provide[d] care to [a] child as an integral part of the local authority’s organisation of its child care services,” are liable for any harm suffered at the hands of ‘parents’ they select to care for that child.

Though foster parents and adoptive parents are in some ways distinctly different – mostly in relation to the duration of time they care for a child – there are several, important similarities which build a strong case for local authority liability in cases likes these.

Whilst some adoption agencies run independently of local authorities, most are part of the local authorities’ children’s services. What this means in practice is that those agencies who are not independent, are effectively part of a local authority.

And just like fostering agencies, adoption agencies are also tasked with preparing and supporting prospective adopters. It is their duty, then, to make sure whoever they select and train to adopt a child is competent to do so.

This post is primarily concerned with local authority run adoption agencies, because we are assuming for now that it was a council that placed Elsie, but that’s not to say voluntary agencies should not be potentially liable for child injuries or deaths arising from their placements.

If we were the O’Brien family’s legal team, not only would we think about pursuing a claim against the local authority, both for Elsie’s death and the added trauma they may have suffered by not being told of her death until months after she passed away, but we would also seek to set a new precedent which matches the recent ruling handed down by the Supreme Court.

Whether a foster carer or adoptive parent, the roles are the same. And so too, must be the rules protecting children who experience either.

ESH.png

Credit:PA

 

 

 

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

November 2017
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
« Oct   Dec »

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: