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?

Welcome to another week.

A former police officer has been spared jail after 1,000 indecent images of children were found in his home – some of which he had made – because of his work exposing paedophiles. Lee Kelly was given a 10-month sentence, which has been suspended for two years.

The judge told Kelly that he felt it would be unjust to send him to prison immediately because of his previous good work during his career as a police officer. It is unclear whether any of the child abuse images were made or gathered during the time he served as a police officer, although media reports suggests this may have been the case. It is also not clear whether the police officer collected and produced images with a view to catching offending paedophiles or for his own use. There is some suggestion from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that Kelly was using the images for sexual gratification.

Despite the lack of clarity on issues going to motive, the CPS did not request a trial of fact to determine why Kelly downloaded the images in the first instance.

Our question to you this week then, is this: do you agree with the officer’s sentence? 

Welcome to another week. 

As 2018 draws to a close, we would like to ask you one very simple question: what has been your biggest child welfare concern this year? 

Whether it’s the government’s failure to address child exploitation, a lack of support for parents going through care proceedings or something else entirely, share your thoughts with our community and tell us what worried you the most in 2018. 

Welcome to another week.

Think tank, The Social Market Foundation (SMF) examined inspection data from Ofsted, and discovered that almost 50,000 vulnerable children were being cared for in areas where council services were failing them. 

SMF offers the key stats below, inside their press release:

•  63% of Local Authorities in England were providing services for vulnerable children which either “required improvement” or were “inadequate.”;
• 47,085 children – 65% of all looked-after children – are looked after in Local Authorities that are deemed to be falling short of a good standard;
• Of those children, 13,790 are receiving care services judged as “inadequate”, which is the worst possible grade. 

SMF produced a report with all their findings, which they’ve entitled, “Looked-after children: the Silent Crisis.”

The think tank is calling on the government to address the findings:

“It is remarkable that the fact that nearly two thirds of Local Authorities being judged in need of improvement or inadequate over looked-after children is scarcely discussed at Westminster. This would not be the case if such levels of failure were found in our school system, where 78% (secondary) and 90% (primary) are judged to be either good or outstanding.. 

This issue clearly needs to receive more attention from politicians and policymakers, and with improvements in the data available, we now have the ability to see where we are going wrong, and how we might improve the situation of looked after children.”

Today, Ofsted launched a beta site where members of the public can search for and access inspection reports for a wide range of bodies and child welfare practices.

Our question this week then, is this: why do you think the government continues to overlook the quality of care councils offer vulnerable children? 

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.