Mothers Who Allege Abuse More Likely To Lose Custody of Their Children

11 Monday May 2020

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, Family Law, Judges, judicial bias, Researching Reform

The first ever national study has confirmed that mothers who make complaints of child abuse against a father in court are more likely to lose contact rights with their children.

The research also found that this risk doubled when a father made a counter-claim of parental alienation, leading the researchers to conclude that “alienation trumps abuse”.

The data revealed the following:

When fathers alleged mothers were engaged in alienation, regardless of any abuse claims, they took contact rights away from her 44% of the time;
When the genders were reversed, and fathers started out with custody of the children, courts removed children from fathers and placed them with mothers only 28% of the time;
Even when the father’s abuse was proven in court, mothers who had alleged that abuse still lost custody in 13 % of the cases;
By contrast, fathers lost custody only 4% of the time when a mother’s abuse was proved in court;
Overall, fathers were much more likely than mothers to win contact disputes when claiming alienation.

The US study was produced by Professor Joan Meier, a nationally recognised expert in the US on domestic violence, and Sean Dickson, and is the second piece of research they have published on this topic.

A pilot version of the study was published in 2017 and found that family courts only believed a mother’s claim of a child’s sexual abuse 1 out of 51 times (approximately 2%) when the accused father alleged parental alienation.

The investigation went on to discover that in cases where alienation is not mentioned, family courts only believed mothers’ claims about child sexual abuse 15% of the time.

The final study, published in January 2020, and funded by the US Justice Department, revealed that alienation’s impact was gender-specific, and that fathers alleging mothers were abusive were not similarly undermined when mothers cross-claimed alienation.

However in non-abuse cases, the data held that alienation had a more gender-neutral impact.

The research incorporated published court opinions available online between 2005 and 2014, and used those judgments to create a data set of 4,388 custody (child contact) cases.

The team classified the cases into different types of abuse allegations by either parent:

Domestic violence against the mother,
Child sexual abuse, and;
Child physical abuse.

The study also included allegations that one parent was trying to alienate the child from the other parent.

As in their pilot study, Meier and her research team found that only 1 out of every 51 cases in which a mother reported child sexual abuse by the father was believed, when the father claimed parental alienation.

Another recent study in Canada made strikingly similar findings.

Many thanks to Kelly Williamson, who tweeted the new research.

child-1439468_1920

Judge Orders Mother In Residential Unit To Be Reunited With Her Baby

04 Wednesday Mar 2020

Posted by Natasha in Judges, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

A judge has ordered that a mother should be reunited with her baby daughter in a residential unit after a local authority applied for an interim care order.

The mother and her baby were placed in a residential care unit offering high levels of support and supervision. The mother then accidentally fell while holding her baby, and the unit staff decided that the mother and child should be separated. The baby was not harmed in the incident.

The local authority then made an application for separation.

An alternative placement for the baby was found and the mother applied to be reunited with her daughter. The judge granted the application, and the local authority appealed.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson sitting at the Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the local authority’s application to appeal and allowed the mother to be reunited with her baby at the unit.

The mother, who had a difficult childhood, struggled with drug abuse for many years and her addiction had affected her baby while in the womb. The mother’s substance abuse also led to the need for one of her legs to be amputated, which resulted in the mother using a wheelchair. The council became involved, and care proceedings were initiated.

While at the residential unit, it became apparent that there was a loving and warm bond between mother and baby, and a report by unit staff noted that the mother had a lot of positive qualities as a parent, and her parenting was “good in most areas.”

Safety concerns for the baby were raised after several incidents took place, including the mother falling asleep briefly in her wheelchair while holding her sleeping baby, and moving around with her daughter without using a sling or a pram.

The report also noted that the mother was sometimes resistant to advice, though it is not clear what advice she was resistant to, nor what her reasons were for resisting the advice.

Important points of law were also added in the appeal court judgment as to how and when interim care orders should be made, and the threshold for separation, which the first judge implemented. Some of those points are added below:

“Having summarised the background, the judge directed himself as to the test for interim separation, most recently sent out by this court in Re C (A Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 1998 at [2]:

(1) An interim order is inevitably made at a stage when the evidence is incomplete. It should therefore only be made in order to regulate matters that cannot await the final hearing and it is not intended to place any party to the proceedings at an advantage or a disadvantage.

(2) The removal of a child from a parent is an interference with their right to respect for family life under Art. 8. Removal at an interim stage is a particularly sharp interference, which is compounded in the case of a baby when removal will affect the formation and development of the parent-child bond.

(3) Accordingly, in all cases an order for separation under an interim care order will only be justified where it is both necessary and proportionate. The lower (‘reasonable grounds’) threshold for an interim care order is not an invitation to make an order that does not satisfy these exacting criteria.

(4) A plan for immediate separation is therefore only to be sanctioned by the court where the child’s physical safety or psychological or emotional welfare demands it and where the length and likely consequences of the separation are a proportionate response to the risks that would arise if it did not occur.

(5) The high standard of justification that must be shown by a local authority seeking an order for separation requires it to inform the court of all available resources that might remove the need for separation.

For the purposes of his decision in this case, the judge summarised it this way:

“The test is whether the child’s safety is at risk and, if so, any removal should be proportionate to the actual risks faced and in the knowledge of alternative arrangements which would not require separation.””

The background to this case, the arguments for and against separation and the reasoning behind this judgment are very much worth a read. The judge allowed reunification to take place because the mother slipping was clearly an accident, and because the judge hearing the mother’s application had applied the law properly.

You can read the judgment in full here.

Mum and Baby

Lady Hale to Retire in 2020

18 Wednesday Dec 2019

Posted by Natasha in Judges, Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

Baroness Brenda Hale, the first woman to become President of the UK’s Supreme Court and one of the architects behind the pivotal Children Act 1989, will retire on 10th January, 2020.

Lady Hale may have risen to the top of the legal hierarchy, but she is remembered by most child rights campaigners as the judge who tried to put children first in court settings and cases involving child welfare issues.

And as the person who pushed the boundaries of family law so that it worked as a practical tool to enable better outcomes for children.

While the Children Act 1989 has its fair share of critics, most notably because it includes the right to remove children from parents without their consent (forced/ non consensual/ involuntary adoption) and because it uses the nebulous test of ‘risk of future harm’ to allow those removals, it is also the first piece of legislation in England and Wales to try to put children at the centre of every child welfare case.

Pioneered by Lady Hale and others who formed an Interdepartmental Working Group including representatives from the DHSS policy makers (Rupert Hughes), legal department (Edwin Moutrie) and social work (Pam Thayer), the Home Office (Bill Jeffrey), and the Lord Chancellor’s Department (Peter M Harris), the Children Act 1989 included key clauses which insisted that children should be the priority in every family law case.

Hale’s compassionate judgments and courageous efforts at applying the law in a way which allowed children to be put first, as well as using those judgments to remind child welfare professionals that children had to be the most important consideration in any case they worked on, earned her a great deal of respect and admiration around the world.

Baroness Hale famously once said that the law had trouble viewing children as real people, in a speech she gave for the Society of Legal Scholars Centenary Lecture, and was often critical of the way the legal system worked, not for the most disadvantaged, but for the wealthy few.

She was passionate about ensuring that children were only removed from their parents in child protection proceedings where absolutely necessary, and spent a great deal of time in the Supreme Court when family law cases came before her, repeating the legal principle that adoptions should always be the method of last resort and not the first, wherever possible.

Researching Reform will be sad to see her leave the Supreme Court, but we hope she will remain active in the fields of family law and child rights, and use her brilliance to help improve the family courts in ways she may not have been able to do so as the country’s most senior judge.

Wishing you luck, Lady Hale, and a wonderful retirement.

You can watch her valedictory this morning at 9.30am in the Supreme Court live here.

A note about the valedictory on the Supreme Court’s website can be read here.

If you’d like to know more about Lady Hale, please type “Hale” in our search bar, and a variety of items should pop up, including past speeches she made, child cases she worked on and more.

Hale sworn In

Family Court Returns Children to Parents – For Making a Good Impression on the Judge

23 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by Natasha in Family Law, Judges, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

A case in which two premature twins were returned to their parents after one child suffered rib fractures, head injuries and subdural bleeding raises serious questions about the way in which first impressions are used in family proceedings.

The judgment, which was handed down by Judge Middleton-Roy in the family court at Watford concluded that the parents’ exemplary behaviour during medical and child protection investigations and subsequent court hearings, were proof that the parents were not capable of inflicting the injuries discovered by medical professionals.

Hertfordshire County Council had applied for care orders for both of the children but the orders were subsequently dismissed.

In his judgment, Middleton-Roy painted a picture of two loving parents who could not have inflicted the injuries sustained by their baby, and seemed to gloss over the father’s acute anxiety and nervousness during questioning, which was put down to a communication disorder by a Consultant Clinical Psychologist, though the father was not deemed to need an intermediary during court proceedings in spite of the alleged condition.

Even more troubling is that this case appears to favour the parents based not just on their eager cooperation with investigators and social workers, but their social standing. The mother is a scientist and the father works in the property sector. The parents had paid for IVF privately in order to conceive. The judgment also records that the parents’ accommodation was comfortable and that their finances had been “carefully planned”.

The health visitor noted that the parents’ home was “warm, welcoming, clean and tidy”, and that the parents showed a great deal of warmth and affection to their twin babies.

However, the medical evidence is substantial and highlights the following injuries:

Retinal haemorrhages in both eyes;
Fractures of two of the baby’s left ribs;
Acute subdural bleeding on both sides of the interhemispheric fissure extending onto the upper surface of the tentorium and in the posterior fossa;
Right-sided haemorrhagic (subdural) effusion;

Medical experts concluded that these injuries could best be explained through rigorous shaking. They were unable to offer alternative causes for some of the injuries, which remain unexplained but one medical expert said that the retinal haemorrhages could have been due to the premature birth and that this area of injury was still being explored by the medical community.

The judgment also explains that one of the factors in the judge’s decision to return the babies to their parents was a lack of evidence showing who might have caused these injuries if they were non accidental.

The evidence did not show a link between the injuries sustained by the baby and who might have caused them if they were deliberately inflicted. This is important because the judge had clearly applied the law in this area properly. If a threshold can’t be met, a finding should never be made.

That of course, does not always mean that a person is guilty or innocent, simply that the facts before the court cannot help to establish a finding.

This site cannot pass judgment on whether or not the parents were guilty of shaking their baby, but we did consider for a moment the high levels of stress on new parents having to cope with not one but two premature babies, despite a network of friends and family to help them. We certainly feel that if one or both parents had caused the injuries it would not have been out of malice, but stress and exhaustion.

The issue that concerns this post however, is the ongoing practice in courts of judging parents by their levels of cooperation and demeanour.

Human nature is such that it is very natural for parents who fear being separated from their children permanently – in any context – to feel anxious, aggressive and even wary of professionals coming into their lives. It is not always a symptom of guilt, and far too many parents are judged, wrongly, by their demeanour.

And often, a lack of cooperation stems from poor treatment by professionals inside the family courts.

By contrast, research tells us that some individuals can present as extremely polite and helpful – even charming – when faced with the possibility of being found out for committing an act of violence, even if they are being badly treated by professionals.

That too, is human nature.

In his judgment Middleton-Roy explained that “The Court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of the parents.”

This site does not think that last part is right. We would like to see judges focusing on the facts and asking pertinent questions based on tangible information and then focusing on the answers, rather than how they are delivered. If judges would like to analyse behavioural patterns, they should ensure that they have high level psychology degrees or equivalent qualifications to do so.

You can read the judgment in full here.

App To Report Bullying by Legal Professionals Ignores Vulnerable Court Users

18 Wednesday Sep 2019

Posted by Natasha in Family Law, Judges, Researching Reform

≈ 6 Comments

The Bar Council for England and Wales (“the Bar Council”) has developed an app which can be used to report bullying and harassment by legal professionals.

However the app, which is called Talk To Spot, is only for barristers. The oversight raises serious questions about the lack of support for vulnerable parties in court proceedings.

The move comes after a report published by the International Bar Association (IBA) concluded that the legal profession “had a problem”, and that bullying and harassment were “widespread”.

A report produced by the Bar Council called Barristers’ Working Lives 2017: Harassment and bullying, also noted a sharp rise in incidents involving bullying and harassment by legal professionals in England and Wales, with 21% of barristers experiencing abuse and 30% of barristers observing abuse.

The latest observations by the IBA and the Bar Council raise serious concerns about how the legal profession’s bullying problem is affecting vulnerable individuals inside the court system.

Calls for parties going through the family courts to have a fast and efficient way of reporting abuse by legal professionals have been repeatedly ignored by the legal profession, despite a survey in which over 90% of respondents said they had been bullied by judges in family court hearings.

Family court users surveyed said that they had experienced the following abuse during their hearings:

Belittling, humiliating and abusive comments to children and family members
Behaviour that causes fear or terror
Demeaning comments about a disabled parent’s disability
Laughing at a parent’s question
Cutting off and silencing parents and their solicitors as they try to make a point
Unreasonable demands in court orders which a “good-enough” parent would not be able to comply with
Constant criticism of a parent or family member
Personal abuse for being unable to afford legal representation
Being bullied into accepting orders
Threats to remove children from parents before the hearing begins
Explicitly favouring one parent over another
Prejudging a case before it has concluded and bullying families into submission

Some incidents of judges bullying families received by this site have been added below:

“My son was humiliated by a female judge in Bolton family courts. She read out a letter supposedly from my granddaughter who at the time was just 9 years old saying she wanted to be called Daniel after the bloke her mother was with at the time. While reading the note out the judge smirked constantly, it was disgusting.”

“Judge [edited] verbally abused me in court. He ridiculed me in front of my husband who abused my children and I for 10 years… He couldn’t even get my son’s age correct. I felt humiliated and burst into tears on leaving court.”

“I was made to comply with impossible court orders. When I confessed that I couldn’t comply anymore during a hearing the judge got sarcastic and belittled me. I wish I could have been sarcastic back and asked him if he could have done the order he imposed on me, but of course I couldn’t treat him the same as he was treating me.”

“The judge wouldn’t allow me to speak about my concerns for my children’s safety, and cut my solicitor off at the middle of every sentence while trying to explain my side of the case. He belittled me and made me anxious at the fact my concerns weren’t been listened to and therefore my children’s thoughts weren’t been viewed or taken seriously.”

Earlier this year, a judge was also found guilty of bullying a mother into accepting care orders for her children. While the order was set aside, the judge faced no disciplinary action for what amounted to negligent practice.

Nevertheless, the Bar Council’s app is unlikely to deter abusive legal professionals or protect individuals from being abused.

While information published about the app suggests that the technology will actually report the abuse if submitted through the software, the app is actually no more than a recording device, allowing barristers to set down their experience and save it for later, should they wish to make a formal complaint.

Currently, complaints have to be submitted to the Bar Council manually, after filling out a report. At this point the filer would have to include their name and personal details, which most barristers are unwilling to do for fear that the complaint could affect their legal careers.

Families who experience abuse by judges and other legal professionals are also fearful that making a complaint could affect their cases, making the idea of an app which only records events almost redundant.

Judicial bullying and harassment at the hands of legal professionals can only be stopped by addressing the working culture of these environments and ensuring that a zero tolerance policy on bullying and abuse is in place.

The app itself is an enormous waste of money, which could have been better spent elsewhere.

Spot 2

Speech! Speech!

10 Friday May 2019

Posted by Natasha in Judges, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

A speech made yesterday by the President of the Family Division has just been published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary.

Speech by President of the Family Division: Nicholas Wall Memorial Lecture 2019

Current President of the Family Division, Andrew McFarlane reflects on the life of Nicholas Wall, a former President, and Head of Family Justice for England and Wales who passed away in 2017.

McFarlane goes on to talk about contact, child protection, secure accommodation, the Children Act 1989, and adoption.

The speech also marks the 30th anniversary of the Children Act 1989.

Nicholas sat on a panel for a Researching Reform debate we hosted with Mishcon de Reya in 2009 in the House of Commons, which looked at protecting children during divorce. We remember him as a thoughtful judge, who questioned the significant harm threshold more than once and advocated for no fault divorce.

You can read the speech here.

House of Commons Debate, 2009: Sir Nicholas Wall, Sandra Davies, Tim Loughton MP, Sir James Munby and Bob Reitemeier

Family Law Judge Investigated Over Condescending Bevahiour in Court

25 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by Natasha in Judges, judicial bias, Researching Reform

≈ 7 Comments

Judge Judith Hughes has been investigated for condescending behaviour during a family law hearing in which she allowed her bad temper to get the better of her by banging her head on a desk after a litigant in person appeared before her in court.

Lord Chancellor David Gauke and Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett acting on behalf of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) found that Hughes’ behaviour was “sarcastic and condescending”, and “failed to demonstrate the standards expected of a judicial office holder”.

Very little information about the context of the complaint is offered by the JCIO though it seems as if the complaint may have been made by the litigant in person, who is likely to have been a parent. Litigants in person are typically members of the public who cannot afford to pay for legal fees, and find they have to represent themselves in court through no fault of their own.

Hughes was issued with ‘formal advice’, and will continue to sit as a family court judge.

This is not the first time Hughes’ temper has been documented. The Telegraph reports an incident from 2017 when the judge also allowed herself to get angry about matters that came before her.

We are encouraged to see parents making use of complaints bodies who appear to be fair and balanced. Perhaps more complaints where warranted might help to put an end to judicial bullying of parents and children in the family court.

91% of Parents Say They Have been Bullied By Judges in Family Law Cases

08 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by Natasha in Judges, Researching Reform

≈ 43 Comments

A Twitter poll carried out by this site has found that 91% of parents going through family law proceedings have been bullied by judges during their cases.

The poll was created in conjunction with our campaign to ensure that families are treated fairly and with respect during the life of their cases. Since launching the campaign we have received hundreds of messages from families saying they were abused by judges during their cases and offering details of their experiences.

The shock revelation comes after barristers complained last month that they were being bullied by judges during court hearings. The Bar Council immediately acknowledged the problem and issued guidance offering lawyers protections against bullying by judges in court.

Researching Reform is now calling on the President of the Family Division to do the same for children, parents and families in child welfare cases.

Our call follows a ruling by the Court of Appeal in February, which found a judge guilty of bullying a mother into accepting care orders for her children. The orders were set aside, however the judge did not face any disciplinary action for her conduct.

These are the most common complaints we received about judges bullying families in court:

Belittling, humiliating and abusive comments to children and family members
Behaviour that causes fear or terror
Demeaning comments about a disabled parent’s disability
Laughing at a parent’s question
Cutting off and silencing parents and their solicitors as they try to make a point
Unreasonable demands in court orders which a “good-enough” parent would not be able to comply with
Constant criticism of a parent or family member
Personal abuse for being unable to afford legal representation
Being bullied into accepting orders
Threats to remove children from parents before the hearing begins
Explicitly favouring one parent over another
Prejudging a case before it has concluded and bullying families into submission

Complaining about being bullied by a judge is almost impossible for parents and families going through family court proceedings.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) has been set up for complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders, however it does not accept all complaints about conduct which amounts to bullying.

While the JCIO can look into the use of racist, sexist or offensive language; falling asleep in court; social media abuse and incidents where judges misuse their status for personal gain, the list does not include a clearly defined set of behaviours for bullying.

Furthermore, the list of items the office will not investigate includes conduct which could be defined as judicial bullying in certain contexts. And the list of what the JCIO can’t investigate is long. Very long:

A judge’s decision or order
Bias in a judge’s decision-making
A judge allowing one party to speak for longer than another
A judge refusing to allow a witness to give evidence or admit certain documents
A judge appearing to react more favourably to one person’s evidence than another’s
A judge saying that he or she does not believe a person’s evidence, questioning a person’s credibility or criticising a person’s actions
A judge making an error of law or procedure
A judge expressing opinions about issues related to a case they are hearing
A judge’s body language, facial expressions or how a judge has looked at a party
The amount of costs or damages awarded by a judge
A judge not reading documents before a hearing
A judge refusing to transfer a case to a different judge or court
A judge reserving a case to themselves
A judge refusing to correspond with a party about a case
Fraud or any other criminal offence
Court staff, court bailiffs or the facilities and services provided by courts
Other bodies such as the Police or Crown Prosecution Service
Solicitors and Barristers

By contrast, the new guidance issued by the Bar Council for barristers who have been bullied by judges offers counsels protection from a much more robust list of behaviours than the JCIO’s own list. The Bar Council outlined bullying behaviour in its guidance as:

Personal abuse,
Sarcasm,
Contemptuousness,
Unreasonable demands,
Relentless criticism,
Intemperate language,
Demeaning behaviour,
Comments designed to embarrass or humiliate.

Parents and family members described several types of bullying by family court judges. We’ve added some instances of bullying below, but a fuller list can be viewed here.

“Litigants in Person suffer the most.”

shame-799099_960_720

Top Judge: Law Has Trouble Viewing Children As Real People

29 Tuesday Jan 2019

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Judge of the Week, Judges, Researching Reform

≈ 4 Comments

In a speech prepared for the Society of Legal Scholars Centenary Lecture, Supreme Court Judge Baroness Hale said that the law still found it difficult to view children as real people.

The lecture took place in November and was held at the University of Essex, however a transcript of the speech has only just been made available on the Supreme Court’s website. The speech, entitled “All Human Beings? Reflections on the 70th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights” looks at how the law views children and how human rights legislation should be challenging those perceptions. Lady Hale also considers how the law affects people with disabilities.

In her speech, Lady Hale offers two examples of how the law fails to treat children as human beings. The first example relates to the language the law uses to describe children. Lady Hale says:

“We still find a child referred to as ‘it’ in legislation, law reports and learned legal publications. As Michael Freeman has written, ‘calling a child an “it” gives the game away. It constitutes the textual abuse of childhood in the English-speaking world . . . the word dehumanises the person who is the subject of these proceedings.”

The second example she offers looks at the way court judgments identify children in proceedings through the use of initials, but offers thought-provoking observations on getting the balance right in this context:

“In the interests of anonymity, we insist on referring to children in judgments by soulless initials, such as T, rather than as real people. So I always try and refer to a child by a plausible name, even though not her own… Julia Brophy’s research-based ‘do’s and don’ts’ for judges anonymising judgments contains the following… ‘some children do not like the use of pseudonyms and such practices can present problems for some minority ethnic families.’ The answer, I think, is to consult the children (if old enough) or their families about how they would like to be named.

Lady Hale goes on to talk about the best interests of the child and how the idea has been interpreted throughout the years, current obstacles to implementing laws that would bolster child welfare, the distinction between ‘welfare’ and ‘best interests’ (Lady Hale explains that children’s best interests are wider in scope than welfare) and mental capacity.

The speech is very much a worth a read.

it (1)

McFarlane Confirmed As New Family Court President

24 Tuesday Apr 2018

Posted by Natasha in Judges, Researching Reform

≈ 5 Comments

Andrew McFarlane has been approved by the Queen to take on the role of President of the Family Division. McFarlane will take up the position on 28th July, after the current President steps down on the 27th, July.

The decision was made with the support of a panel, which included Baroness Hale, Professor Lord Kakkar (Chairman of the Judicial Appointments Commission), Dame Valarie Strachan and Mr Andrew Kennon.

His appointment will come as no surprise to this site – we tipped McFarlane for the Presidency in March of last year. McFarlane replaces Sir James Munby as President of the Family Division.

As a judge, McFarlane looks set to take up Munby’s mantle as a vocal figurehead wading into the politics of the family courts. Unlike Munby though, McFarlane appears reluctant to highlight controversies inside the system.

A member of the Norgrove Review, which was perceived by many to be too narrow in its scope and lacking in innovation, McFarlane is carving out a reputation for himself as a cautious and diplomatic President, trying to please all parties inside the Family Division.

His trademark diplomacy can be seen in some of his judgments. Presiding over the Charlie Gard case in 2017 , McFarlane highlighted grounds which he felt were powerful enough on their own to grant the family permission to appeal, during what were fraught hearings for the parents. In 2012, McFarlane was also one of several judges invited to give evidence at the House of Lords, on the adoption process.

Perhaps the new President feels a collaborative, and non confrontational approach might succeed where Munby’s direct and often powerful calls to action inside the Family Division, have failed. This is unlikely to be the case. Munby began his career as President with the same outlook as McFarlane has now. What Munby discovered, was that the softly softly approach did nothing to address the entrenched and often wilful breaches of policy and law inside the child welfare sector. It’s going to be interesting to see how McFarlane’s approach changes during his term. He may have to pick a side after all.

Welcome, McFarlane.

McFarlane