Welcome to another week.
Our question this week is very straightforward.
If the government were to launch a full inquiry into children’s social care in England and Wales, which areas would you like to see examined?
Question It!
27 Monday Jan 2020
Posted in Question It, Researching Reform
Researching Reform 
Now the Ministry of Justice have organised a Parental Aliemation panel, how will this work to avoid this being ignored in the courts
LikeLiked by 2 people
Could you please send me a link to this panel?
LikeLike
Family court and social services into illegal forced adoption remove their powers
LikeLiked by 3 people
Reform family and social service and stop forced adoptions
LikeLiked by 4 people
Look into the system of forced adoption with a view to stop it and replace it with a proper system based on a proper legal system requiring factual evidence. Remove all participation of social services. An in-depth investigation into why family courts at present never investigate and recommend prosecution into social service perjury under criminal law.
All family proceedings should be investigated by the police, with the presentation of factual evidence.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Unfortunately unless the Children Act 1989 is abolished such a proposal will not solve things. The police will only need evidence that you put on little Jayden’s coat after you put on your own and that you yelled at him once. The removal of children should be a very basic thing. Is the child’s life in danger? Is the child being sexually abused? Has the child been battered? Not been fed and is underweight? People are going to think I’m mad for saying this but we need to restore what we had in times past when parental authority and personal liberty overtook more so called progressive mindsets. A few children will probably suffer in less than ideal homes where they are moderately neglected but in no immediate danger, however it’s better than the alternative where the state gets to improvise the law around child protection because nothing is specific and everything is subject to interpretation by these professionals who have their own personal agenda. Removing children from their family of origin has been compared to the death penality and rightly so.
LikeLike
Manchester…. Definitely….. Infact it needs launching everywhere…. Where corruption is not happening? Look these parental alienation terms used…. It’s another hike of lack of commonsense….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Forced adoption,
as thats where all other SS corruption stems from.
this is without doubt the gorgons head.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Not shure if your Q refers to the area of SS problems or area of the country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does your Q refer to the area of SS problems or the area of the country.?
LikeLike
the removal of children as it financially cheaper than placing 24/7 practical support in the home of disabled parents to ensure the child’s needs are met correctly
LikeLike
I would like to see the Children Act 1989 completely abolished and replaced with something more primitive and specific that outlined the importance of liberty and balanced this with protecting children from battery and genuine neglect but that’s never going to happen.
It’s considered ‘progressive’ now to see every one person as an individual who can exist only within the context of themselves. People are no longer viewed as part of a family and all our relationships are seen as disposable. This is very evident in how the state approaches the relationship between children and parents, between couples, between siblings and other family members.
I think we need to put the liberty of a nation above the more superficial aspects of the perceived welfare of children. I don’t think anything other than severe neglect, sexual abuse or battery should be the state’s business.
I would like to live in a world where the government could offer therapeutic support to struggling families but unfortunately the line between good and evil is too thin for this to be compatible with liberty and justice.
Those who trade their liberty for safety end up with neither.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stop forced adoption and support families unless they have caused harm,not just think they have using a crystal ball method.
Possible future harm should exist.
LikeLike
Stop forced adoption and support families unless they have caused harm,not just think they have or will by using a crystal ball method.
Possible future harm should be abolished for sure.
LikeLike
Sorry meant should NOT exist.
LikeLike
1:-No child should be adopted if the parents oppose it.
2:-No child should be removed from parents for “future risk”
3:-No parents should be forbidden to protest publicly if their children are taken
4:-No child should be isolated or forbidden to contact parents by phone or text
5:-No child should be forbidden to report being abused in care to their parents.
6:-No child should be forbidden to speak its own language or discuss “coming home”
7:-No child should be taken if the parents have not committed crimes against children
8:-No child should be taken into care until the judge has spoken to the parents in court
9:- All judges in family courts should ask parents to state their opinions in person;
10:-Any child wishing to speak about their case in court should be alllowed to do so .
LikeLiked by 2 people
All of the above are valid points of note, but being more specific at the level of principle is what is needed. “Parens Patriae” as applied today is a corruption; this is a fact that can be sustained by some legal history.
The entire Children Act is a weapon of a totalitarian state, which does almost the total opposite that the Law Commission said it would do, that is evident by the abolition of the Rule of Law that a Father is the natural guardian of his legitimate child, the corruption of the common law, because maintenance is reciprocal to custody and guardianship… you cannot have it both ways.
A family without its own natural head ceases to be an individual and unique organ, its obvious to me this was the result of an ideological design and has nothing to do with children’s real interests.
The use of the civil “Balance or Probabilities” as a benchmark to inflict a life sentence worse than imprisonment on the natural parents and the children is perhaps the greatest hallmark to show just how deeply perverse is the family court, nothing less than the criminal burden of proof can be required to justify the consequences of these actions, which in any case carry a disproportionate punishment on the children as well as the parents, this has encouraged misrepresentation, malicious claims and perjury to flourish.
I am still unsure if the above travesty referred to is the result of incompetence or a design that has very insidious aims, but then it takes imagination to comprehend why the Family Court came out of a merged jurisdiction of Probate, Divorce, Bankruptcy and Admirality ? …(let’s call an ecclesiastical court a civil court) – Trade secret anyone.
LikeLike
Sadly Gelli Juris “being more specific at the level of principle” though a very worthy ideal changes nothing.Only actual changes in the law can do that and the 10 measures I suggested would wipe out nearly all the injustices in the family courts..
For example,the balance of probabilities test would vanish after the implementation of my point 7 .”No child should be taken if parents have not committed crimes against children”
True that is a double negative and the point could do with a rephrase but the meaning is clear and the result would be “earthshaking” as far as the family courts are concerned !
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think you will find being more specific on the principles of Law will change everything Ian, re-read my post. The Family Court is not going to reform itself, the incentive that the professionals have to interfere in a child’s life needs to be removed and the position of law clarified that your children are a corporate issue of the municipality with a corporate board of guardians subject to the public trust, their is something that the law affords us which is of great power and effect it is called a declaration, alternatively you could ask the members on the bench do a DNA test, the next time they play “Big Daddy” ….. you will not solve the problem by running to those who created it, their is an ideological scheme behind what we are dealing with, but the deal was it has to hold to law…… I do not wish to sound rude or condescending but in this fight the intellectually lazy have no chance.
LikeLike
Only parliament can repeal the Children Act 1989 .Most of the MPs now in power were certainly not those who passed this terrible Act 31 years ago so enough pressure could make them repeal it but “don’t hold your breath ” !
Repeal would mean1:- The end of forced adoption 2:- The end of Family Court secrecy and most important 3:- The end of Care orders for “likelihood of future harm”
Nothing “lazy” about that !
LikeLiked by 2 people
On Mon, 27 Jan 2020, 9:31 am Researching Reform, wrote:
> Natasha posted: “Welcome to another week. Our question this week is very > straightforward. If the government were to launch a full inquiry into > children’s social care in England and Wales, which areas would you like to > see examined? ” >
LikeLike