Welcome to another week.

Lawyers representing child sexual abuse survivors have asked that Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, be called to give evidence at the nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse.

The request comes after evidence from several witnesses suggested that Gove intervened in an investigation into alleged sexual abuse by a priest. The claims, which allege that Gove telephoned to ask about the priest and requested a report on the complaint, were made by two child protection professionals. Gove denies the claims.

The lawyers believe that Gove should be questioned at the Inquiry in order to resolve the contradicting testimonies.

The Guardian reports:

“Clare Winter, the deputy director of children’s services responsible for children’s social care at Somerset county council, told the inquiry in 2017 that she received two telephone calls in 2010 from Gove and his office inquiring about the investigation.. The second call, she said, came from “somebody who said they were the secretary of state for education” who repeated a request for information about the progress of the investigation into a priest, known only as F65, suspected of having oral sex with a 16-year-old boy.

Jane Dziadulewicz, another safeguarding official responsible for child protection, told the inquiry that she helped produce a report for Gove’s office on the progress of the Downside investigation following the calls.”

MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has connections to Downside school, never responded to the Guardian’s questions in relation to whether he had discussed the investigation with Gove.

As the communications to the professionals were not made in person, it is possible that an individual was pretending to be Gove in order to access information. If calls were recorded by councils, this would have offered strong evidence and helped to clear up the conflicting testimonies in this case.

Our question this week then, is just this: do you think councils should record their calls? 

Welcome to another week.

The Home Office is advising families travelling with differing surnames to bring birth or adoption certificates to the airport, to prove the identities of children within family units.

Officers at the airport are to step up interrogations in a bid to tackle child trafficking and exploitation.

The request was not well received by parents, and some member of the public on Twitter, who felt the new policy was draconian and heavy handed.

A tweet posted on 1st August, highlighting the change has received over 500 comments, most of which appear to be deeply critical of the move.

Replying to the Home Office on Twitter, Welsh MP Hywel Williams said:

“Wholly unacceptable. Having different surnames is not some bureaucratic problem. My wife is Davies- she’s not an add-on to me. My children are Hywel – a pattern becoming more common in Wales as we shed practices enforced on our culture during industrialization.”

Academic researcher Dr Johnna Montgomerie observed the effect this would have on married women who chose to forego taking their husband’s names:

“Just to clarify women who chose not to take their husband’s surname or have children with a partner they are not married to will be subject to increased border measures. This is what freedom looks like under a #Tory government? Straight out of #Gilead”

Tweeter Nicky Marsh pointed out the impact this would have on men, as well:

“Absolutely, this is terrifying. And this extends to men, too, and might even be more problematic for them: my children have my surname rather than their father’s and although we are married this is an issue for him.”

Another tweeter pointed out an issue in relation to carrying several important documents around:

“This is a great way to lose important documents while travelling. Brilliant advice from the same department who will probably try to deport people later on when they have lost, say, a marriage certificate abroad after following this advice.”

Our question this week then, is just this: do you agree with the new policy?

Welcome to another week.

Former President of the Family Division, James Munby has urged the government to ask the public if it would like to be able to Skype judges during hearings rather than attend a physical court.

The question comes as the country faces mass court closures, with many already unable to attend available court houses without having to travel vast distances. Munby highlighted this issue by giving an example of  a mother living in a rural area, who does not own a car, having to get to the court.

Our question this week then, is just this: do you think being able to virtually attend court hearings using Skype is a good idea?

Welcome to another week.

A debate in the House of Commons looking at protections for victims of domestic violence will take place on Wednesday 18th July. The Westminster Hall debate will look at the government’s efforts to protect victims of abuse during cross examination in family courts.

This is the summary offered on the Parliament website:

“The Prisons and Courts Bill published in February 2017 contained provisions to prevent perpetrators of domestic violence cross examining their victims in the family court. However, the Bill fell at the General Election in 2017. The Queen’s Speech 2017 confirmed that there would be a draft Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill and also that a Courts Bill would re-introduce measures to prevent alleged abusers cross-examining victims directly.

In March 2018, the Government launched a consultation ‘seeking views on both legislative proposals for a landmark draft Domestic Abuse Bill and a package of practical action.’

In relation to protections in the family courts, the consultation states that new Family Procedure Rules allow vulnerable parties to family proceedings to give evidence behind a protective screen or via video link. It sought views on whether there were other aspects of the criminal court treatment of vulnerable people which the family court could learn from. A draft Domestic Violence Bill is due to be published later this session.

There have been calls for the Government to act more quickly. Women’s Aid and Queen Mary University School of Law published a report in May 2018 which argued that the Government shouldn’t wait for the Domestic Abuse Bill but should use “the quickest legislative vehicle available” and the Victims Commissioner Baroness Newlove has also argued that “time is of the essence”.”

Currently, alleged and convicted offenders of abuse are not allowed to cross examine alleged victims of that abuse in the criminal courts. This automatic presumption does not exist in the family courts.

Our question this week then, is this: do you think the law should be amended to prevent all alleged and proven abusers from cross examining alleged victims in family court?

You can access the full report here. 

Welcome to another week.

As the ultra successful Family Drug And Alcohol Court (FDAC) looks set to close, Nick Crichton, the judge who pioneered the programme in the UK is calling on the government to keep the scheme alive. 

The unit, which is the only family court to date that offers a personal, and proven programme for helping keep families suffering from substance abuse together, has been systematically rejected by local authorities around the country, who claim not to be able to see its value.

FDAC also prevents mothers dealing with addiction from losing their children, and entering an often unbreakable cycle of care proceedings, fostering or adoption plans, and a move to get pregnant again to cope with the loss once the child is taken, which in turn leads to more care proceedings and child removal orders.

The units are also saving the government a lot of money. Research suggests that FDAC saves the government £17,000 per adoption and fostering case. In 2017, there were over 72,000 children in state care.  The number of children adopted in 2017, was 4,350. The number of children paced in foster homes in that same year was 53,420.

Conservatively, FDAC could be saving the government over 900 million pounds a year. At full throttle, the savings could reach well over a billion.

There has been the suggestion that local authorities are refusing to implement the units because they don’t see what they get out of the programme. The argument is that FDAC employees and teams reap all the benefits of the scheme and the host council, benefits little. Others, like Researching Reform, take the view that local authorities, whose main streams of revenue include fostering and adoptions, see FDAC as a threat to their income.

Our question this week then, is just this: what do you think should be done?

Welcome to another week.

More than 1,200 parents in Minnesota, America, have launched a class action to shut down social services in the state, accusing it of gross negligence and law breaking. The parents are also calling on the US government to make lying, fabricating evidence and ignoring the law whilst carrying out social work, a punishable offence.

A local media outlet spoke with a mother who had joined the class action, and reported that:

“After taking her ten-month old son to the hospital for a cough, doctors said he was stable, though they recommended she should stay. She chose to go home because, as she told the outlet, “After waiting, I had asked to leave because I wanted to put my kids to bed and I had my three-year-old with me.”

“I asked if there was anything else that had to be done,” she said. “They said ‘No, there was no other testing or anything that needed to be done.’”

But two days later, police showed up at her home to take him back to the doctor, and there was already a foster family lined up to take him. “She checked him out, all his vitals were stable,” she said. “They already had a foster parent in the room, in the room to remove my son before they ever proved … before they ever proved there was an emergency situation.”

He has been in foster care for over a week. Weber was supposed to get [her son] back on Tuesday, but the judge postponed the case because no county attorney could make it to court.

“I need to share my story and if I need to share it a hundred times, a thousand times – I will,” she told KMSP.”

Our question this week then, is just this: should the UK government make lying and fabricating evidence whilst doing social work a crime?

Many thanks to Maggie Tuttle for sharing this news item with us.

Welcome to another week.

The European Court of Justice has just ruled that EU law does not limit child contact rights solely to parents, but that it also includes grandparents.

The case, which was brought by a Bulgarian woman wanting to see her grandson, confirms that rights of access refer not only to those conferred on parents in relation to their child, but also includes other people who are considered to be important to the child.

As the UK is bound by EU law for the time being, this ruling will have a significant impact on our Family Court and the way it interprets contact.

Our question this week then, is just this: would you like the President of the Family Division to comment on this recent ruling? 

Many thanks to Maggie for alerting us to this case.

Welcome to another, slightly shorter, week.

A petition on Change.Org asking Prime Minister Theresa May to stop children being abused through the Family Court process, has gathered almost 77,000 signatures.

The petition anonymously details a case where two children were taken by force in the middle of the night, from their mother’s home, by the police, and forced to live against their wishes with their father. It alleges that the children have tried repeatedly to tell Cafcass that they wish to stay with their mother and have no contact with their father, however the petition suggests that Cafcass are not listening to the children, and that the father has used his financial advantage to hire specialist lawyers to remove the children from their mother’s care, as part of an ongoing series of controlling behaviours the petition alleges he has been exerting over the mother for some time.

The view outlined by the petition is that despite policy, guidelines, and legislation, which make it clear that the family courts should not be used to facilitate abusive behaviour or to place children in more situations where they could be emotionally or physically harmed, little in reality is being done to stop these practices. It also highlights the ongoing persecution parents face if they try to challenge the system’s decision making, or amplify the voices of their children if contrary to the court’s interpretation, or lack of interest in those voices.

As we cannot verify the contents of the case, this week’s question is not about the legitimacy of the claims themselves. Instead, we are asking you this: do you think the family courts and Cafcass have improved the way they listen to children?

Very many thanks to Evie, for alerting us to this petition.

Welcome to another week.

As the government gets set to build a working model around best practice in social work, the question being asked by the Department Fo Education now, is what does best practice look like?

So our question this week, is just that: what examples of best practice would you like to see implemented nationwide?

Welcome to another week.

A recent article in Community Care questions the jargon used in child protection, calling it divisive, demeaning and devoid of feeling. The piece comes after Researching Reform featured findings from Scotland’s care system review which recommended that the language used by social workers should be overhauled to make it less alienating for children in care. This site invited readers to consider whether the language needed to be reviewed in England and Wales, as well.

The use of corporate style language inside the care system is something we have written extensively about. In 2015 we wrote a piece for Lexis Nexis on what we felt was unhelpful and unnecessarily cold language inside the family justice system, affecting not only children in care homes, but families and litigants in person too.

Our question this week then, is just this: what words or phrases currently used inside the child protection sector do you dislike?