• 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: December 2018

To Our Readers: Merry Christmas, Thank You, Let’s Make 2019 A Monster

24 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 4 Comments

As the end of another year approaches, we would like to thank our readers and posters for taking the time to explore our site, share their thoughts and help to raise awareness around child welfare. We are hugely grateful for your support, and this year you have helped to take the site and its work further than ever.

Our most read stories in 2018 reflect growing concerns around self-serving politicians and government bodies, a keen interest in child welfare professionals challenging forced adoption, the impact of the care system on families and a surprise entry in the form of a post on child pornography:

  1. A Mother Got On Her hands And Knees In Court And Begged Me… Please Don’t Take My Children Away.”
  2. The End Of Forced Adoption In The UK? Meet The Social Workers Challenging The System.
  3. MP Calls For Government Review Of CAFCASS
  4. Is Virtual Child Pornography A Safe Alternative?
  5. Theresa May’s Husband Set To Profit From New Cannabis Medicine After Government Relaxes Ban“

This year Researching Reform exposed malpractice inside the child protection sector, from child welfare professionals forcing parents to sign illegal documents taking away their recording rights during proceedings, to councils using Section 20 arrangements to unlawfully detain children and place them in care.

In August, we were humbled to announce that the project’s website had been nominated as one of 15 websites to follow around the world for child welfare. Thanks to The Times’ generosity, we were able to write a letter to Family Court President Andrew McFarlane, asking him to remove the courts’ adversarial processes.

Many of our stories come from readers who feel as passionately as we do about child welfare reform in the UK and internationally. We would like to thank these readers for giving their time and sharing information with us, and as we always explain, this site would not be what it is without your incredible kindness.

We would also like to say thank you to the children we write this site for. You are our inspiration, we think of you every time we write or launch a project at Researching Reform. A special thank you to those of you who shared your experiences in care and those going through the family justice system, yours is the voice we value the most and the one we will continue to amplify.

Although there are still a few days left before we reach the new year, we already have new projects and new stories for you, new issues to tackle and new faces to introduce you to in 2019. But that doesn’t mean that we’re leaving behind the core principles that we built this site on: transparency, open dialogue for all and innovative ways to improve the child welfare system.

To those parents who can’t be with their children during the holiday, our thoughts and hearts go out to you. Stay strong and please remember that no legal bond is ever as strong as a natural one. Your children feel your love always, and time moves, nothing stays still forever.

And so we wish you all a very merry Christmas. Let’s raise some hell together in 2019.

With love,

Researching Reform

Addams Merry Christmas

 

 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Rebel Judge Who Pioneered UK’s Problem Solving Courts Passes Away

21 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in Children, Researching Reform

≈ 10 Comments

Nicholas Crichton CBE, the family law judge who pioneered the UK’s first Family Drug and Alcohol Court has died at 75. Crichton believed that the problem solving courts, first implemented in America, were essential to the UK’s family justice system. Despite the courts saving the government vast amounts of money and delivering outstanding results, FDAC has continued to struggle for funding. 

Crichton was the first full-time family judge to oversee child welfare cases in England and Wales. Researching Reform met Judge Crichton for the first time in 2009 to interview him in his chambers. Although our views differed at times, our shared interest in improving the family justice system resulted in a professional friendship that we will remember with fondness. 

Nicholas very graciously sat on the panel for a debate we produced in the House of Commons about the Summer Riots.

His speech looked at alternative ways to approach vulnerable families and he talked about the benefits of the Family Drug and Alcohol Court. In his speech, Nick described the phenomenon of parents having more children as a way to try to get over the loss of previous children being taken into care and explained the importance of policies which work to keep parents and children together:

“Today I have been sitting in the Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC)… It’s extremely hard work for the parents… It’s no good just saying that these kids are not safe and removing them, we have to tackle the core problem..  

I have had women scream at me in court, “If you take this one away, I’ll go on having one a year until you let me keep one”. I have read a psychiatric report in which a mother said that “every time they take a child away the only way I can deal with the pain of the loss is to get pregnant again”.”

Over the years Nick assisted us with various projects, including an encyclopaedia on Family Law, coming on board as one of the encyclopaedia’s editors. We also worked with the BBC on a documentary about Phoenix Futures, one of the rehabilitation centres for FDAC. One of our favourite Nick quotes came from a meeting for this project. Nick was describing some of the conflicts of interest judges faced inside the child welfare system and he said:

“Some judges simply follow the guidelines with a view to getting promoted, even if those rules fly in the face of what’s best for a family. I refuse to play that game.”

When the Voice of the Child Sub-Group, which Nick chaired, wanted to launch a consultation about children’s wishes and feelings during child welfare proceedings, Nick very kindly shared his thoughts with Researching Reform. 

Nick felt strongly that children should be able to contribute to decisions being made about them if they actively wanted to do so. During the interview he said, “Children, however young, are individuals in their own right, and we have a duty to listen to what they have to say… It is my experience that children are almost always very vocal and keen to participate… I believe it essential that children’s wishes and feelings should be recorded verbatim.”

We spoke with Nick again after the publication of guidelines released by the Sub-Group on children being able to speak with judges in family law cases. Nick was always keen to push the family courts’ boundaries in order to improve the experience for children. His efforts at launching FDAC across the UK resulted in several courts being rolled out across the country and his determination and innovative thinking won him allies in Westminster and elsewhere. Nick was a force for good inside the system. 

Our thoughts are with Nick’s family at this difficult time. Nick will be remembered by Researching Reform as a rebel judge with a very big heart.  

Crichton

 

 

 
 

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Home Office Schools: ‘State Sanctioned Child Abuse That Was Universally Known’

19 Wednesday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry

≈ 6 Comments

Home Secretary Sajid Javid has come under fire this week for failing to offer a formal apology to survivors of child abuse who went to Home Office run schools.

According to website The London Economic, David Enright, a solicitor representing 22 survivors of abuse has written to the Home Secretary on several occasions asking for an apology for the abuse experienced by children at residential schools. The schools were set up to take in children who had committed minor misdemeanours, truancy, those who had found themselves in the care system, or children who were from poor backgrounds. Enright also asked the Home Office to attend hearings being held by the Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse.

No apology has been issued and the Home Office has confirmed that it won’t be attending sections of the inquiry’s work, telling Enright that as a representative of the Ministry of Justice was present, a Home Office representative was not necessary. The Home Office then sent a lawyer to the inquiry to read out a statement written by Sir Philip Rutnam, permanent secretary at the Home Office. Rutnam’s letter acknowledged that vulnerable people had been let down and that the government department was taking the IICSA’s investigations seriously.

Survivors were not impressed by the effort, calling the letter and the sentiments contained within it, hollow and too little too late.

David Enright and survivors of child abuse at several residential schools say the Home Office is to blame for the culture of abuse and the ongoing physical and emotional harm that took place in these schools, including forced labour and sexual assaults. Testimony from one teacher who taught at a residential school offered damning evidence which appeared to implicate the Home Office:

Now, this was not an aberration. It was a nationwide Home Office policy…The Home Office published reports about corporal punishment in approved schools … they analysed with charts and graphs how useful lashing was to stop boys from running away…Nobody asked why the boys were running away … This was state-approved and sanctioned child abuse and it was universally known of.

Further testimonies from survivors describe how paeophiles were able to use a state-sanctioned fear of violence to get away with sexually abusing children at Stanhope Castle in Co Durham, Forde Park in Devon, St Aidan’s in Cheshire and St Vincent’s in Merseyside.

Enright wants the Home Office to admit responsibility for the abuse and to apologise to survivors and victims who endured physical and emotional violence in the schools.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

In The News

18 Tuesday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in News

≈ 6 Comments

The child welfare items that should be right on your radar: 

  •  Revealed: Three of Britain’s biggest childcare charities including Barnardo’s are at heart of police probes into claims of historic child abuse 
  •  Researchers find child abuse rates rise when report cards issued on Friday
  •  Guildford couple’s child adoption complaint rejected

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Question It!

17 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 15 Comments

Welcome to another week. 

As 2018 draws to a close, we would like to ask you one very simple question: what has been your biggest child welfare concern this year? 

Whether it’s the government’s failure to address child exploitation, a lack of support for parents going through care proceedings or something else entirely, share your thoughts with our community and tell us what worried you the most in 2018. 

Image courtesy of Molong Historical Society

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Big Data Isn’t Ready To Predict Child Abuse.

16 Sunday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, Researching Reform

≈ 8 Comments

The news in September that councils are set to use people’s data to detect child abuse has caused a stir, but councils in London have been piloting predictive analysis models across their child protection services for the last three years. And it’s not just councils – the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions have been using predictive technology for some time.

A September 2017 article in Apolitical, describes how councils in London have been applying data analytics to try to identify children at risk of harm since 2015. It also suggests that the predictive model used in one council had an 80% success rate, though it’s not clear from the article exactly how success rates were measured. What’s interesting about this article is that it highlights the financial advantages to councils, of using data in this way. The article tells us:

“Councils are expected to save over $910,000 for early targeted interventions, $160,000 by replacing human-conducted screenings with an automated system, and $193,000 for improving access to multi-agency data.”

The article says that the company responsible for creating this predictive model is called Xantura, and their pilot inside the child protection sector has been running since 2015. The cost of the software is an eye watering $1.25 million, and was launched in January 2015.

Councils using Xantura’s software have been slow to trust the model, which is not completely effective, or accurate, though social work teams may be more concerned about the threat the software poses to jobs inside the sector. That councils will have to pay for the software out of their own budgets is perhaps another reason the uptake on the model has been slow.

Xantura is adamant that their software will save councils money in the long run, and some local authorities are getting on board as a result. According to Apolitical, Xantura’s “Early Help Profiling System” (EHPS) uses data from multiple agencies, which includes information about school attendance and educational attainment, families’ housing situations, and economic indicators. The model then takes those statistics and turns them into risk profiles for each family.

The now infamous Troubled Families Programme, hides a Big Data secret of its own. The programme made the news after a whistle blower exposed the project’s fraudulent activity, which included using stale data to assess families. Members of the team also massaged the figures to engineer outcomes so that they could cover up the programme’s failure and make it look like a success. What nobody mentioned, or knew at the time, was that they used big data, too.The software the programme used was called ClearCore, and it was developed by UK based company, Infoshare. That was as long ago as 2013.

Technology offers benefits when it is accurate and effective, but the government’s drive to use predictive analytics inside the child protection sector, knowing these models do not deliver robust results, makes the software’s predictions highly dangerous, and the government vulnerable to costly litigation. 

Previous attempts at using this kind of data to try to predict child abuse took place as early as 1991. A paper produced by researcher Mark Campbell and published in The British Journal of Social Work in June 1991, looks at an experiment carried out within one local authority. The paper was entitled, “Children At Risk: How different are children on Child Abuse Registers?” 

The experiment included a checklist with 118 items on it, which was created to see if it could identify children at risk of abuse and neglect. The checklist was applied to 25 different families, who were attending local authority centres at the time. Of those families, nine had children on the local child abuse register. The checklist scores of the families on the register were compared with those that were not, in the control group.

The research discovered something fascinating. There was little difference in the factors studied between the two groups. The report offered one of two reasons for the finding: either there was little real difference between the characteristics of abusing and non-abusing families, or the registration process was controlled by events which were not solely related to the characteristics of the families involved in the study.

Other countries around the world have also been exploring ways in which Big Data could be used to detect child abuse. In 2015, a call centre dedicated to child welfare concerns in New Zealand decided to collate data on families that called through, to see if it could spot patterns that might predict child abuse before it happened. This pilot used 131 indicators, including the ages of mothers on benefits, the dates of their first benefit payments and the types of family units they came from. 

Although predictive models like these claim to have success rates anywhere between 76-80%, families could be being exposed to analytics that stereotype individuals and create unhelpful biases. One year after New Zealand’s pilot at the call centre, another call centre, this time in America, tried a similar experiment. The Allegheny County Office of Children, Youth and Families (CYF) child neglect and abuse hotline in Pennsylvania, collected information from the county, sourced also from 131 indicators, to see if the Office could detect child abuse before it happened, or escalated. The predictive analysis model they used was called The Allegheny Family Screening Tool. 

What the experiment revealed was unsettling. The problem, which was initially raised by a 2010 study of racial disproportionality in Allegheny County CYF, was that the vast majority of disproportionality in the county’s child welfare services stemmed from referral bias, rather than screening bias. The research confirmed that people reporting child abuse called hotlines about black and biracial families three and a half times more often than they called to report on white families. 

The implications of the findings for child protection services in the UK, and predictive models being used inside the sector, are enormous. Tensions between social workers and single mothers are at an all time high, with research being produced by groups like Legal Action For Women, which suggests that social workers already have an inbuilt bias towards poor single mothers, who in turn feel they are being targeted due to their economic circumstances. Where bias and prejudice may already be built in to a system, and data offers part of a picture but may not be able to factor in nuance, predictive models as they stand today may just be automating inequality. 

This article is adapted from a post Researching Reform published in September, 2018.

BigData

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

New Online Magazine Launches For Parents With Children In Care

14 Friday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, forced adoption, Foster Care, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

A new online magazine which has just been launched aims to offer parents with children in care or facing child protection proceedings support and advice.

PAR, which stands for Parents Advocacy and Rights, features videos, conferences and presentations on what it’s like to lose a child to the care system, how parents are treated by child welfare professionals and families’ experiences of the system.

PAR .png

The website explains that PAR is a parent led group offering support to other parents “with children in the care system, child protection, children’s hearings, and other situations where they have lost care of their children, or risk losing care”.  The ‘About’ page of the site says:

“Many parents and their children feel they are the last people to be heard when social work or health or education get involved in their lives. We believe that parents and families need help to be heard and that social workers and others need help to listen and to make respectful relationships with parents. No decisions about us without us!”

PAR 2

The project appears to be led by Maggie Mellon, an independent social worker practicing in Scotland. She was also Vice Chair of The British Association of Social Workers (BASW). Maggie is known for her outspoken views on the care system and her no-nonsense approach to addressing problems within the child protection sector.

In February 2016, Maggie commented on the state of social care in an article for Community Care:

“I believe that suspicion of parents and of families has become corrosive, and is distorting the values of our profession..

Despite there being no significant rise in the number of children who die as a result of parental abuse or neglect, risk of abuse is assumed to be high…

What does this say about how social workers view parents and families? And, just as importantly, what must it tell us about how parents view contact with social services? I believe that the evidence is mounting of mutual distrust and fear.”

In July of this year, Maggie also supported this site’s call to hold a debate on Britain’s forced adoption policies.

PAR’s website includes information about a conference being held in Scotland. The conference will give a voice to mothers who have lost children to care and adoption or are at risk of doing so. The scheduled date is 3 November, which we are assuming for now is set for 2019.

We tried to watch the featured video on the site, but spent the first two minutes crying.

Parents, do let us know what you think about the site.

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

In The News

12 Wednesday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in News, Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

The latest child welfare items that should be right on your radar:

  • Children in care data visualisation tool launches – Participating organisations include Coram
  • Disgraced Welsh Tory caught with child abuse images seeks sympathy over new job
  • Royal chauffeur died before child abuse charges could be brought

boy-reading-newspaper-new-001

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

President’s Guidelines On Anonymity In Family Cases Confirm Adoption Adverts Are Breaking The Law

11 Tuesday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Family Law, Researching Reform

≈ 9 Comments

New guidelines issued by the President of the Family Division to better protect children from identification during child welfare proceedings confirms that identification of children in care causes life-long damage to children and their families, and amounts to a breach of the child and their family’s human rights.

The Times picked up on McFarlane’s suggestion to give social workers the chance to address criticisms of their assessments during the court process this week, which has sparked concern among families going through child protection proceedings who have yet to be given the chance to address personal criticisms of them, which are often unfounded. The guidance also recommends passing on social work criticisms about council misconduct and illegal activities to Ofsted as well as the council in question’s Monitoring Officer to ensure that any breaches are dealt with in law.

Of equal interest to this site are McFarlane’s recommendations for keeping children’s details private to avoid their identification online and in the real world, and it is his reasons for keeping those details private which unwittingly make the strongest case possible for banning councils and agencies from posting intimate details about children waiting to be fostered or adopted online or in the public domain.

The guidelines issued last Friday make specific references to the impact of children in care being identified, which clearly apply at every stage of a child’s life. One of McFarlane’s key observations on identification and how it can not only traumatise families for life but also affect their futures is found on page 4, and is added in his thoughts about identification through ethnic detail:

“Identifying a child/parent by ethnic group can be a key identifier -and with ‘beyond border’ implications where families have links with communities elsewhere. Information about abuse can have lifelong economic, social and psychological consequences for family members; it can result in serious social stigma, rejection and trauma, impacting on marriage prospects and life chances.”

McFarlane offers more reasons on why identifying children in care is dangerous, this time in relation to their personal safety. At page 6 of the guidelines he says:

“The need for a public body to be identified when acting in respect of citizens is recognised to be important. Nevertheless we now know that naming the local authority in a public document may set clear geographical boundaries to the location of some children; their location may be further narrowed down by other information in a judgment.”

The ability to find and locate children is re-activated once proceedings are over and a child is placed with a fostering or adoption agency. Councils and agencies are then free to publicly advertise a child’s name and details, often with photographs of the child, all fully available online and for the world to see, including offending paedophiles, child traffickers and criminal gangs. There is no sound logic to this.

McFarlane uses risk of identification to defend the practice of not naming councils in family law judgments (and in other parts of the report social workers), however there is clearly a much bigger issue here. It’s all well and good protecting children during proceedings, but their rights to personal safety and a life free of abuse and trauma do not end once these proceedings are over.

If you feel as strongly as we do that a child’s human right to privacy is an inalienable legal right as set out in the Human Rights Act 1990 and the Convention on the Rights of the Child – both of which the UK is fully signed up to – then please consider signing our petition to end the advertising of children online for adoption and fostering purposes. 

Ad Pet

Share this:

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

Like this:

Like Loading...

Suicide Rate Up To Five Times Higher Among Mothers Whose Children Enter Foster Care

10 Monday Dec 2018

Posted by Natasha in Foster Care, Researching Reform

≈ 12 Comments

New research has emerged which confirms that women who have their children removed from them and placed into foster care, are more likely to commit suicide than mothers whose children are not fostered.

An article in The Conversation written by Elizabeth Wall-Wieler, a PhD student at the University of Manitoba, Canada, highlights key research which shows an increased mortality rate for mothers who lose their children to the care system.

Wall-Wieler explains that while mothers whose children are taken into care sometimes have underlying health conditions, the studies take those pre-existing conditions into account, meaning that the data is directly linked to the impact of losing a child to the care system.

The first study, published in December 2017 in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, was co-produced by Wall-Wieler, and examines suicide attempts and suicide completions among mothers whose children were placed in care. The researchers discovered that suicide rates among these women was almost three times higher and the death rate almost four times higher than those mothers whose children had not gone into foster care.

More research co-produced by Wall-Wieler and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, in March 2018, found that mothers whose children were placed in care were almost five times more likely to die from avoidable causes such as unintentional injury and suicide, and almost three times more like to die from unavoidable causes, including car accidents and heart disease.

A third study, published in the British Medical Journal’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, in October 2017, shows that when a mother loses her child to the care system, her physical and mental health become significantly worse.

While the above research does not address the impact the care system has on fathers, it’s likely that this data will emerge in time.

The research, which applies to both the US and UK child protection sectors, highlights the importance of thinking about the effects the care system has on parents and the need to address the current policy and legislation around foster care and adoption. Wall-Wieler recommends more support services for grieving parents, and while this is an important point for parents who have already lost children to care, it does not address the underlying realities of children’s social care today, which is not fit for purpose.

It is also a timely reminder that policies which seek to wrench children away from parents rather than offer families support wherever possible, is both misguided and dangerous. President of the Family Division, Andrew McFarlane, horrified the British public last week when he suggested that care orders should be made while children were still in the womb. The family court process is deeply traumatic, and orders seeking future removal of children who are currently unborn would without a doubt lead to more mothers committing suicide, and taking their unborn children with them.

Setting aside the legal problems pre-birth care orders create, which McFar-Gone (our new name for him), should really be familiar with, the research is a sobering reminder for our senior judges that moving away from more holistic solutions could lead to many more deaths inside the family justice system.

Many thanks to Susan for sharing this article with us.

FC Al.

Chart Source: Fostering in England 2016 to 2017 

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 8,452 other subscribers

Contact Researching Reform

Huff Post Contributer

For Litigants in Person

Child Welfare Debates

December 2018
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Nov   Jan »

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: