An important, and potentially groundbreaking report, has been published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which argues that children should not be separated from mothers who are sent to prison – because that separation violates the right to family life.
The conclusion in the report follows a landmark case in the European Court of Human Rights which found that a forced (non consensual adoption) had also violated a child and mother’s right to family life.
Harriet Harman MP, who is the Chair of the human rights committee told Politics Home that imprisoned mothers should not be separated from their children, because the effects of that separation are life-long and deeply damaging to children. The report suggests creating legislation which requires judges in criminal courts to consider the best interests of children whose parents are being tried for crimes.
She went on to say, “The Right to Family Life, set out in article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, states that “Everyone has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”. It is this right that is violated when a child loses their mother to imprisonment.”
That same logic must be applied to children who are forcibly removed from their parents during child protection proceedings, and who arguably may be separated from their parents for their entire childhoods, not just a few months, or years.
While this site is not arguing that children should remain in homes where their lives and wellbeing are at risk, we are advocating for more intelligent forms of child protection policy which understand that removing a child from a parent – particularly without parental consent – is a direct violation of a child’s right to family life, and that there are far better ways of addressing welfare problems than outright separation.
This is hugely significant in the case of adopted children, who like children of parents sent to prison, suffer similar setbacks as a result of family separation.
It is not a coincidence that a large percentage of adopted children seek out their birth parents at some point in their lives. This reality must be acknowledged and understood as an important phenomenon and a deeply damaging effect of removal.
If children of parents who have committed crimes can be allowed to have contact with their parents, the same must be allowed for children who are removed from their families during child protection proceedings.
The myth that parents who have children taken from them inside the family courts are evil or without any love for their children also has to be addressed. In the ten years we have been assisting parents, most of the cases we come across involve parents in need of support – support which would make it very easy for these parents to keep their children at home.
Will the government acknowledge that child protection policy also needs to be reviewed?
You can access the Committee’s report here.
Perfect blog post and observation. Could not have put it any better myself.
Hear hear!
Xxxx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Xxxxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
in my case the soical worker said my 3 children have been abused in medway care and to stop me having contact with my daughters have allaged that they dont want to see me. no evidence and no resaon
shocking my case of unlawful taking of my 3 daughters i have 2 threshold documents for the 1 case!!!!
?????????
LikeLike
I am sorry for mothers in prison who cannot see their children and am glad something is being done to help them.
However ,WHAT ABOUT MOTHERS WHO ARE NOT IN PRISON ????????
Thousand of mothers who have never committed a crime and not been given so much as a parking ticket are nevertheless forbidden to see their children marked down a likely material for adoption.
Surely these blameless mothers most of whom had violent partners from whom they had escaped are victims of the “punishment without crime” cult that now rules social workers and the like.? Innocent children are continually being punished by heartless social workers and complacent judges who ruthlessly deprive these children of any contact with the mothers they love and miss.so desperately……….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not in family court it not the whole system his madness all I what his my little man back that it what dose number and alphabet or letters Put them in alphabet order got do with parenting thank u
LikeLike
Your headline is miselading:
“Denying Children Access to Their Parents Violates Right to Family Life – Harriet Harman MP”
Your opening paragraph:
“An important, and potentially groundbreaking report, has been published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which argues that children should not be separated from MOTHERS (my emphasis) who are sent to prison – because that separation violates the right to family life.”
Natasha, how can it be that in 2019 you don’t see fit to comment on Harman’s scandalous anti-father prejudice, one element in her wider anti-male prejudice?
Mike Buchanan
JUSTICE FOR MEN & BOYS
http://j4mb.org.uk
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike, that is what the report is about. If you read the rest of the post you see I use the word parents. Pull yourself together. Your anger is why you get nowhere.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natasha, my comments related to Harriet Harman, and you haven’t responded to them. And I can well do without your sneering tone. If you knew anything about the men’s rights movement you’d know that we, and other organizations and individuals within it, are making considerable progress.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it’s amazing that you can quote an mp who has actively worked against fathers rights & still does & then turn around & tell somebody who doesn’t like it not to be angry. This is the problem with this whole area. It is mother centred rather than parent centred. If you had any respect for alienated fathers you would have mentioned Harriet harmen’s Current & previous actions to take fathers rights away.
LikeLike
Each one of you criticising the post has missed the point. The piece is trying to make Harriet see that she’s making a universal point, not one that’s just directed at mothers. This area is not mother centered. Nor is it father centered. This perception is what is causing the problems. You need only talk to mums who have lost their children to the system to understand that. But you would rather lash out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have been through the system & Harriet Harmon is of why fathers have such s hard time in family court. I do not see 1 of my daughters & have custody over the youngest 2 because the system allowed her to make these choices & did nothing to stop her when she went against her rulings. It is particularly galling to see Harriet Harman quoted in this way as some kind of parents rights champion when she is specifically talking about mothers who have committed crimes getting out of jail terms when I as a father have committed no crime but do not see 1 of my children & have had 2 more in therapy due to ratio dm abuse by their mother. I have not missed your point. I just think it’s telling that you think it’s ok to give more oxygen to this toxic person & her toxic views. I notice you seem to have only have s problem with her for her involvement with PIE rather than her entire political career. Perhaps instead of accusing everybody of being angry & lashing out look at why so many people have responded negatively to your post. They would require treating fathers as human beings though equal to mothers so I won’t hold my breath
LikeLike
No one is championing her as a parents’ rights advocate and I’m not a fan of Harriet’s. I’ve made that clear. And most people who have commented on and shared this post have not reacted badly because they got it. You really have misunderstood the entire angle of this post. I’m genuinely sorry about what happened to you and your daughters, but I would reconsider your approach on forums like this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would also urge you to be more careful with the people you choose to promote in your blog. I understand your approach. I fundamentally disagree with it. You would not be posting the quotes if the gender roles were reversed & that is my point that you have entirely missed
LikeLike
For goodness’ sake. I am not promoting Harriet Harman. I’m also banning you from this site, which you’ve clearly not read or realised is gender neutral.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Denying Children Access to Their ‘Parents’ Violates Right to Family Life – Harriet Harman MP’ xx
LikeLike
… and why shouldn’t men be angry at all the assaults on their human rights, including denial of access to their children by malicious women, and the corrupt family courts and corrupt lawyers and corrupt staff in CAFCASS? Men should be rioting in the streets in huge numbers. Listening to the people – like you – who say they shouldn’t exhibit anger is precisely why the state has been able to get away with assaulting their rights for decades.
Suicide is the leading cause of death of men under 45 in the UK. The suicide rate of men in the UK is 3.5x that of women, and trebles following divorce.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Us mums have got a raw deal too, just like the dads, ‘Denying Children Access to Their ‘Parents’ Violates Right to Family Life – Harriet Harman MP’
Both mums and dads are being wronged and it’s from denying access to their parents…. which violates right to family life, how i read this particular blog post to be about.
We all need to unite as one for the children.
xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
You may be missing the point. Harriet Harman has never said that denying children access to their parents violates the [ECHR Article 8] Right to Family Life. If she had, she would be doing what you, Mike and I think is correct: supporting all parents and supporting children regardless of which parent is missing. Instead, the appropriately-named Harman only bothers about mothers, and the comparatively few mothers in prison (for everything from fraud and drug abuse to child abuse and murder), without any concern for the vastly greater number of fathers in prison. Harman has been very open about following the feminist line of wanting fathers removed from the family.
Thank you for being reasonable and sensible. Yes, both mums and dads are being wronged and children suffer whether they miss a mother or a father. Unlike Harman, we all need to unite.
LikeLike
We had our children removed simply for asking for support for our daughter who has multiple learning disabilities. We our encouraged as parents to seek help and flag up developmental problems in our children, could this be a rouge to opening the door to stealing our children ?. Local authorities do have a legal duty to support and offer a care package to families, section 17 of the children’s act to enhance the parents not to undermine. Sadly local authorities are allowed to flout these laws . please Harriett Harman apply this family court who are the real abusers in most cases, after all it was you’re party , Ed Ball’s who brought out this abhorrent way of dealing with parents who ask for support, only caring parents ask for help .
LikeLiked by 1 person
im asking for help and it lost my 3 daughters asking again and i get made homeless im still needing help but to broken to ask anymore as no one is hearing me
without my daughters safe in my arms i am dead
i fully understand that the death rate for parents who love their children and been victim to unlawful keeping of their children must be high
this is worse than when i was raped and abused as a child myself
you have raped me of my children
mother fighting for justice
LikeLike
I’m so sorry to hear about what’s happened to you. This is Natasha. Researching Reform’s founder. If you’d like to email me to see if we can help, you’re welcome to get in touch at sobk13 at gmail dot com.
LikeLike
I have searched elsewhere and can find nowhere that Harriet Harman has ever discussed the topic of denying children access to their parents. Harriet Harman has many times made statements that directly discriminate against half of children’s parents: their fathers. If you have a source which supports your claim, I would appreciate seeing it.
In a society where children are roughly twenty times more likely to be denied access to their father while he is in prison (even though only seven times more men are convicted of crimes than women) it is disgusting that the government produces a sexist report on “The right to family life: children whose mothers are in prison”.
Given the availability of government resources to research the entire topic of parents, and the well-documented problems with loss of contact with fathers, it is hard to see such a report as anything other than a continuation of the ideological attack on men, fathers and families.
LikeLike
If you’re referring to the headline of this piece, that is clearly what she is saying, even if the report focuses on women in prison. She refers to the primary carers, which can also be men, but beyond that her logic must apply to both. I’m just forcing her hand a little.
If you weren’t so adamant to attack those trying to help, you’d see that I was actually being inclusive, and highlighting that the conclusion in this report is right for both men and women, even if Harriet hasn’t explicitly said the word ‘man’ or ‘father’.
As for Harriet personally, I’m not fan. She was involved with PIE and quite frankly, that’s inexcusable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do not attack those who are adamant to help, as you imply of me. Perhaps attacking men in that way is not helpful for you if you want to convince people that you are really trying to help.
I don’t see how you are going to force any politician’s hand by misreporting or misrepresenting what their entrenched position is. It surely can only work to report their sexism and misandric discrimination clearly and loudly, helping readers to see the oppression for what it is.
I agree with you about Harriet Harman. The accumulation of her disgusting, abusive and discriminatory practices should be enough to have her banned from public office. Instead she is lauded as a feminist icon; which perhaps says much for modern feminism.
LikeLike
I didn’t attack anyone. And I don’t agree with your analogy. That’s all that I’ll say on these points.
LikeLike
By Christopher Booker6:24PM GMT 02 Nov 2013 The Telegraph.
It is a basic principle of British justice that no one should be sent to prison except in open court, so that their name can be known and why they have been jailed. But this has long been one of those basic principles that are routinely ignored in our ultra-secretive family courts.
In a parliamentary answer given by Harriet Harman in 2006, she said that some 200 people had been jailed in secret by the family courts in 2005, and that her government now wanted to open up the courts to ensure that this scandal did not continue. Last May and July, following publicity given to a case in which a woman was secretly sentenced to 12 months in prison for rescuing her father from a care home, where he was being mistreated, the new head of the Family Division of the High Court, Sir James Munby, issued guidelines reminding his fellow judges that this was against the law, as clearly restated in the Rules of the Supreme Court as long ago as 1965.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The men criticising Harriet Harmen should come to Cambridge. Here fathers always get the children and there is no justice for mothers. Its wonderful to see a senior female role model sticking up for other women at last!
LikeLike
What data source are you using for that extraordinary statement, please Teresa? Do you know how many contended and non-contended cases there were in the statistics?
LikeLike