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to make factual determinations on the several allegations around domestic violence raised by the mother, and for his outdated views on rape.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?

Welcome to another week, and apologies for our absence, work has been a little busy.

Our question this week focuses on child rights.

As the system still struggles to understand children and how their wishes belie important needs, we wanted to ask you: in what ways do you think the system could truly put children first? 

Welcome to another week.

Family law body Resolution has revised its guide to working with Litigants in Person, and there are a number of interesting suggestions.

For example, in child protection cases, the guidance suggests that aggressive or inflammatory language in lawyers’ communications both written and verbal should be set aside in favour of polite and considerate communications.

The guide also asks lawyers to think carefully about whether a C1A form – which is used to set down allegations of harm and domestic violence – needs to be submitted.

The guidance aims to try to preserve any goodwill between the parents where possible by trying to reduce friction which can be caused by aggressive form filing (rather than legitimate filing).

Our question this week, is this: what would you like to see in to the guidance? 

Welcome to another week.

Our question for the week is just this: using one word, describe what you think is missing inside the family court system….

Welcome to another week.

A letter from a member of the public in Brighton’s Argus newspaper has suggested councils should take seriously overweight children into care, as the phenomenon amounted to child neglect and abuse.

Mike Howard, from Greentree’s Crescent, in Sompting told the Argus that while the measure sounded draconian, it was the only way “to seriously address the problem”, and that Sally Davies, the former Chief Medical Officer for England, had offered a pointless solution to the issue in placing a ban on eating while on public transport.

Mr Howard said:

“A seriously overweight child is prima facia evidence of child neglect by the parents and should be treated as such. Feckless parents, who are clearly neglecting their child’s welfare need to be offered training on health and nutrition, which it would be reasonable to expect them to pay for, followed by a period of monitoring of their child’s health.

If, at the end of this period there is no improvement in the child’s well-being then the possibility of taking the child into care should be  seriously considered.”

Research tells us that children can become overweight for a variety of reasons, including genetics, a lack of physical activity, unhealthy eating patterns, or a combination of these factors. In some cases, becoming overweight can be caused by medical conditions.

Our question this week then, is just this: do you agree with Mr. Howard? 

Welcome to another week.

We thought we’d ask a straightforward and simple question this time: can you describe the family courts in one word?

Welcome to another week.

A BBC investigation has uncovered hundreds of children going missing from care every year in the North East.

The probe discovered that 11 local authorities lost 596 youngsters from 2014 to April this year.

The local authority which lost the most children during the five year period was Sunderland City Council, followed by Newcastle City Council and then Durham County Council.

One teenager told the BBC that he found being in care frightening, and that carers hit him and “treated him like rubbish.”

On being questioned over the number of children going missing in their care, spokespeople for Sunderland, Newcastle and Northumberland said the councils had child-focused strategies and that the safety of the children in their care was their priority.

Our question this week then, is this: why do you think councils are losing children inside the care system?

Welcome to another week.

A male paedophile pretending to be a single mother in an online chat forum has been jailed for five and a half years after being caught trying to encourage parents to abuse their children.

Samraj Kundi told forum members he was a single mother from Liverpool who was “into action, not fantasy”, The Independent reported on Sunday.

Kundi pleaded guilty to 12 charges of intentionally arranging or facilitating the commission of child sex offences and two counts of breach of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

This was not his first series of offences. Mr Kundi had served a two-year prison sentence for distributing indecent images. Once freed, he began committing new offences within three months.

Mr Kundi’s barrister tried to mitigate his sentence by explaining that he had committed the crimes at a time when he was suffering with “low mood and anxiety”. It is not clear from initial reports whether the judge took these factors into account when deciding Mr Kundi’s sentence.

Kundi will spend at minimum of three years and eight months in prison with the possibility that he might serve out the whole of his sentence. Once released, he will then be on an extended six-year licence period.

Our question this week then, is just this: do you agree with the sentence Mr Kundi was given?

Welcome to another week.

Politicians in Ireland are calling on their government to launch an inquiry into adoption practices, including forced adoptions and illegal adoptions.

The move comes after several adoption agencies in Ireland were found to have carried out illegal birth registrations and adoptions.

Families in Britain are also reporting incidents of illegal registrations and adoptions, while other families say they are being exposed to inhumane treatment inside the family courts during child welfare proceedings.

That treatment, families say, includes bullying, blackmail and threats from child welfare professionals and judges to comply with social work reports and court orders, which some parents say are not in the best interests of their children.

An inquiry into adoption was carried out by the British Association of Social Work last year, however it focused on the role of social workers within the adoption process and did not investigate whether policies such as forced adoption and current social work practices and culture were genuinely working for the best interests of children inside the system.

Our question this week then, is this: should there be a government inquiry into adoption practices inside England and Wales? 

If you are on Twitter, please take our poll on whether an inquiry should be launched. 

Welcome to another week.

The President of The Family Division, Andrew McFarlane, said in his first View From The President’s Chambers that the system would have to cut corners in order to keep going amid budget cuts and increased workloads. McFarlane used his first report as President to highlight his concerns for the wellbeing of social workers, lawyers, judges and court staff in the family courts.

McFarlane said that cutting corners could include increasing the time limit on care proceedings which is set at 26 weeks (the current average completion time is 30 weeks), shortening the working hours of the family courts and reducing the length of Position Statements so that they are initially not more than one side of A4.

The President’s green light to draw out family law cases comes at a time when families are reporting increased levels of mental illness during family proceedings, with some saying that protracted hearings are re-traumatising parents and leading to mental health conditions like PTSD.

It is not clear whether the views expressed in the President’s View are in breach of human rights legislation and the Children Act 1989.

Our question this week then, is this: does the Family Court President ever have a right to allow the cutting of corners in child welfare cases?