Welcome to another week.
The President of The Family Division, Andrew McFarlane, said in his first View From The President’s Chambers that the system would have to cut corners in order to keep going amid budget cuts and increased workloads. McFarlane used his first report as President to highlight his concerns for the wellbeing of social workers, lawyers, judges and court staff in the family courts.
McFarlane said that cutting corners could include increasing the time limit on care proceedings which is set at 26 weeks (the current average completion time is 30 weeks), shortening the working hours of the family courts and reducing the length of Position Statements so that they are initially not more than one side of A4.
The President’s green light to draw out family law cases comes at a time when families are reporting increased levels of mental illness during family proceedings, with some saying that protracted hearings are re-traumatising parents and leading to mental health conditions like PTSD.
It is not clear whether the views expressed in the President’s View are in breach of human rights legislation and the Children Act 1989.
Our question this week then, is this: does the Family Court President ever have a right to allow the cutting of corners in child welfare cases?
Researching Reform 
Well the easy way to cut the workload by around 50% in the family courts would be TO STOP TAKING CHILDREN FOR MERE RISK !
If children were only taken if crimes against them had been committed by parents then the UK would be a safer and happier place and the family courts would not be overworked !
NO PUNISHMENT (of parents) WITHOUT CRIME !!
LikeLiked by 3 people
If the corners are superfluous……
LikeLike
and all industry will go ashtray!
LikeLike
Sack and jail the professional criminals who perpetrate such injustice causing families who are wronged to suffer miscarriage/potential miscarriage of justice and ensure there is a place- post adoption where they (parents) can go to get their Cases reinvestigated where there has been foul play.
Then the same with the Judges who are bad too, where this applies.
Wasn’t David Cameron once considering this re the former?
It seems to me that because more and more children are being taken then quantity is being given priority over quality. Then we read children being guaranteed a forever home and a loving home if they are adopted. How can that always be so in an imperfect system. This needs changing because it’s simply misleading.
I note the President shares his concerns about these Professionals but not the wronged, affected families who suffer trauma for many years after if not the rest of their lives.
This latter should be part and parcel of welfare checks before any final decisions are made and Contact should certainly be left open, even if only limited each year. All Court Officials should be asked to confirm they are satisfied they have submitted everything factual too, because anyone can submit hearsay.
Serious crimes like fraud need to be included in Judgements too (mandatory) under the rules of natural justice.
Speaking as one parent with experience, who finally has got her grown up child back home and has 4 children altogether. xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
“The President’s green light to draw out family law cases comes at a time when families are reporting increased levels of mental illness during family proceedings, with some saying that protracted hearings are re-traumatising parents and leading to mental health conditions like PTSD.
It is not clear whether the views expressed in the President’s View are in breach of human rights legislation and the Children Act 1989.
Our question this week then, is this: does the Family Court President ever have a right to allow the cutting of corners in child welfare cases?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Question it! | tummum's Blog
It primarily concerns me that the starting point is that as “family lawyers and judges it is for McFarlane (at least(, a total ‘given’ that you will go the extra mile for the sake of the child, the parties and the system when this is needed. You will, I am sure, continue to do so..”
This simply seeks to create illusory confidence in a system that is broken and personnel are part of that system. It simply sweep problems under the carpet.
The timing of this response is concerning. Can someone tell me when this was published?
LikeLiked by 2 people
1 January
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure if this blog post will help Natasha xx http://www.pinktape.co.uk/rants/a-view-from-the-coalface/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Xxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
you wont see judges hold social workers to account you wont see judges punishing social workers who commit acts of perjury , you wont see information in reports and statements fact checked , family law courts are kangaroo courts where law doesnt exist , when parents try to expose the truth we are gagged and if we continue we are put in prison , yet LAs will use pub;ic money to silence parents , we dont have legal aid for appeals , yet we as parents that have lost children have no voice for our children because the state stole it !!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
the cutting of corners should never be allowed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
please dont hide my name , i want [edited] county council to know and judges to know that their gagging orders mean nothing to me , ive had to learn to behave myself , judge [edited] is up his own arse granted me an appeal but no legal aid for it , the only way these people will listen is when direct action is taken , not protests not letters to MPs but every single parents Fd over by the state should flood the high court london and not move , not outside inside 100 people aint enough it needs to be 10,000 or more sick of my voice being silenced by way of gagging orders !!!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dear poster, while we are very sympathetic to your point of view, we have to comply with family law reporting regulations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually street protests (unless there are many thousands) achieve nothing as they hurt nobody .The law is made by MPs so your MP is the one to attack or at least pester
.Even one person camping in the MP’s garden,protesting at his/her children’s school ,accosting his/her Partner,disrupting his/her meetings.and generally making your presence felt non stop can aggravate and maybe provoke action !
You have to ask for something specific however (as you are entitled to do) and I reckon “NO PUNISHMENT(of parents) WITHOUT CRIME ” is a good start !
LikeLiked by 1 person
Presumably, that would be a major admission of failure! Aren’t they supposed to be impartial anyway?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No MPs are not mean’t to be impartial at all ! They are elected to pass laws and represent their constituents.They cannot interfere with court decisions but they can vote to change the law so that future decisions based on revised laws would be both fairer and different.Also if any social worker or other government agent breaks existing laws and is not prosecuted you can press your MP to investigate and to take action.
LikeLike
Pingback: Family Court President wants to allow cutting of corners in child welfare cases – Support Not Separation