Welcome to another week.

As lockdown comes to an end, we have just one question for the families of children in care: how was your experience of contact with your child?

Welcome to another week.

As the government is set to allow schools to re-open in June, our question this week is just this: do you think the government has done a good job of protecting children from the novel Coronavirus so far?

Welcome to another week.

The family courts in England and Wales use the civil courts’ “balance of probability” standard when it comes to assessing evidence in family cases.

In criminal courts, the standard implemented when trying to decide whether something did or didn’t happen based on the evidence in court, is “beyond reasonable doubt“.

Our question this week, which has been placed inside a poll on Twitter, reads:

Should the family courts stop using the “balance of probability” test when examining evidence in child welfare cases, and use the “beyond reasonable doubt” test instead?

Yes, No, or do you think the test should be something entirely different?

Let us know what you think over on twitter, or in the comments section below. Our poll on Twitter runs for 7 days.

Many thanks to Dana for sharing an article on this subject.

Welcome to another week.

As the government tries to address the challenges faced by parents and professionals in the family courts during the Coronavirus outbreak, families are highlighting ongoing problems with applications for urgent hearings and contact with their children.

Our question this week then, is just this: what challenges are you currently facing?

Welcome to another week.

As the novel Coronavirus affects UK family courts and child welfare proceedings, our question this week, is just this: has the disruption affected your rights – whether to a fair trial, or to see your children, for example – and how have courts and councils responded?

Welcome to another week.

As we continue on with our newly launched Voice of the Child Podcasts, we’d like to hear your thoughts on the programme.

The series focuses on law and policy which affect children, including forced adoption, foster care, child protection proceedings and a wide range of current affairs.

What would you like us to cover?

Do you have a tip?

How can we make the programme better?

If you haven’t had a chance to listen to the Voice of the Child, you can catch the current episodes on Sound Cloud.

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?

Welcome to another week.

Simple adoption is a form of adoption used in France, which does not sever family ties between the child and their biological parents.

While the terms of a simple adoption may vary within the countries that implement the policy, in France a child can keep their biological parents’ last name, and retains their inheritance rights.

Under simple adoptions, adopted children effectively have two families and contact is encouraged with both biological and adoptive parents.

The UK currently implements a full adoption policy, which sever a child’s ties with its biological parents and very rarely allows for regular and meaningful post adoption contact. Instances where post-adoption contact do occur, are often referred to as open adoptions.

Our question this week, then, is just this: do you think the UK should remove its full adoption policy and replace it with simple adoptions? 

We are running polls on Facebook and Twitter asking the same question, so please do choose one of these platforms and have your say.

If you don’t use Twitter or Facebook, please leave a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ as a comment on this post, and feel free to add any further thoughts you like.

Twitter Poll

Facebook Poll

Welcome to another week.

As the new year begins, our question is just this: what changes in child protection would you like to see in 2020?

A case in which a mother blocked the father from having contact with their son over grounds that the father was domestically abusive and had raped her, will now go to a fact finding hearing.

The mother lost custody of her four year old son after making the claims in court.

The initial ruling raised concerns after the the judge overseeing the case said the woman had not been raped because she had not fought back during the encounter.

Judge Tolson was criticised by the mother and her legal team for failing to make factual determinations on the several allegations around domestic violence raised by the mother, and for his outdated views on rape.

Established research confirms that victims of rape often freeze or become passive when being attacked.

The case was heard in the Family Division of the High Court last Thursday, where Ms Justice Russell said a new fact-finding hearing would take place and would be handled by another judge.

Our question this week, is just this: should parents who are found guilty of domestic abuse, or rape, be allowed to have contact with their children?