Judge refuses to see evidence of child abuse

[UK Column News 23.11.2017 with Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and Alex Thomson]

Brian Gerrish: "Now this is what we covered yesterday: Very quickly, a case going back to November 2015 where three Hampshire county council social workers were found wanting by a judge; lying on oath; altering basically reports that were taken through as evidence; and withholding evidence from the court. So these were serious charges that the judge made in his judgment. The judge`s opinion was then overturned by Hampshire council working with an organisation looking after professional standards for social workers.  And so our first point was that this is quite amazing that it doesn`t matter what a judge says in court: If you`re in the right organisation you simply overturn his judgement."

 

"Well this one just beats everything. because today somebody has contacted us talking about what`s been going on in the family courts. And this relates to a case which we believe is going on in the Midlands. We believe it`s to do with an immigrant community We`ve had reports of women in immigrant communities, in the Sheffield area particularly, coming forward and trying to protect their children against abuse. Authorities then release their names back into the community and the women are raped, beaten up or both."

"What`s going on here is a court case where the judge is refusing to accept video evidence of child abuse. So the evidence is there to show what is going on in this particular case but the judge is simply saying `No. My eyes don`t want to see this evidence, so it can`t be brought into court.` So therefore the court is running a completely alternative court case."

"This situation was challenged. You can obviously freeze the screen to look at the detail of the excerpt that I`ve given you. I can only give you so much."

 

"But this is the utterly astonishing thing that we`ve got here because this is the response from Sir James Munby`s office, President of the family law division."

"The President can only deal with the cases that comes before him in a judicial capacity. He cannot investigate, comment or give advice on the decisions made by other judges. This is not out of any lack of concern, but because to do so would undermine the principle that judges are free to decide how cases should be conducted. He does not intervene on behalf of a party in any case and accordingly, it would not be appropriate for him to comment on the matters you raise. If you are unhappy with a judge`s decision, order or ruling then you must follow the appeal process, although it is not guaranteed that there would be a right of appeal."
"The President cannot assist you further."

"What we`re essentially saying is where there is video evidence of child abuse family court judges can simply say `NO no no. I don`t want to see that. I`m going to make my judgment without seeing the evidence of the actual child abuse.` This is astonishing ... and shows that we cannot trust family court decisions in any shape or form..."

Mike Robinson: "So to do so would undermine the principle that judges are free to decide how cases should be conducted. So if you have a corrupt judge - and nobody can deny that such a thing exists - if you have a corrupt judge what this email seems to be saying is the President of the family law division, the head of the department as it were,  has no power to investigate or deal with the corruption of a judge."

"That`s absolutely right. And I come back to the fact that what we`re dealing with here is not some sort of hearsay; we`re dealing with video footage of child abuse. So just a remarkable admission by Sir James Munby`s office. Now it has come from his office; it`s possible that Sir James isn`t really aware of this reply. But it has come from his office..."

Alex Thomson: "Yes we keep talking about Sir James because he`s a very conflicted character and he had some good in his life before, I think; so what`s happening with him now is anyone`s guess. It`s the same with anyone in high authority...The creation of the family division and the removal of juries allows these prima facie mis-trials .. to occur because judges are acting as juries... "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ighsX0syYgE

Family court system is at full stretch

"The head of the family courts has issued a dire warning about court, barrister and local authority ability to cope with rising numbers of care cases."

"In a commentary about the family courts, published this week, Sir James Munby, president of the High Court’s family division, described the system as `at full stretch` and facing `a clear and imminent crisis`."

"This warning followed another record month for care applications. In the past 10 years, the number of care applications going through the courts have doubled, and 2016-17 already looks to be another record year for case numbers."

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/09/20/munby-system-facing-crisis-clear-strategy/

"The single, most important thing that could be done to tackle the crisis was a shift in the focus of the family courts towards tackling the causes of care cases, he added. He cited positively the Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC), which seeks to use proceedings to help parents tackle substance misuse problems and thereby keep hold of their children, and Pause, which supports women at risk of repeat removals of children."

"FDAC, Pause and similar projects are, at present, the best hope, indeed, in truth, the only hope, we have of bringing the system, the ever increasing numbers of care cases, under control," he concluded."

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/09/20/munby-system-facing-crisis-clear-strategy/

A good response from LongtimesSW

"This goes to the heart of the British Constitution as it now exists – rightly, the Judiciary and the legislature are separate."

"However what is clear is that social care have to answer/respond to both."

"Resources or lack of them are not accepted by Courts as a reason not to comply with Legal obligations – in turn Government control of the purse strings for those resources take little or no account of the laws they promote and are passed."

"Yet again the focus is on perceived social care failings rather than the failings of social policy/legislation that is driven by finance rather than need – (allowing private organisations to disregard some aspects of statute in respect of Child Protection responsibilities is an example)."

Case should be reheard after couple has been acquitted

"A family court judge has ordered the fact-finding hearing of a case where parents had their child adopted be reheard after the couple were acquitted of criminal charges of causing injuries to their child."

"The chief of the family courts, Sir James Munby, ruled that a new fact-finding hearing was necessary for the parents of a child, referred to as X, who was born in 2012, and has been living with his adoptive parents since 2014."

"The unnamed local authority had concerns after a series of injuries on X were identified, and a judge found the case against the parents proved. The judge later refused the birth parents leave to oppose the adoption, and made an adoption order in 2015."

No case to answer

"However, at a subsequent criminal trial, “the expert evidence had expanded both in volume and, very significantly, in its ambit, but at the date of the hearing before the judge in the family court this new evidence was not to hand”."

"Prosecution against the parents was later abandoned, and they were acquitted “on the basis that there was no case to answer”."

"The birth parents then launched an appeal against the original fact-finding decision in care proceedings. The appeal was supported by the child’s guardian and the adopted parents. However, the adoptive parents said they would oppose any application to undo the adoption order..."

The rehearing will happen in October 2016.

------------------------------------

It`s always a good idea not to jump to conclusions about what may happen to a family in the future; especially before all the evidence of what happened in the past has been tested in court.

Warrant issued for man whose son was placed for adoption

"A man whose son was placed for adoption could be jailed after social services bosses complained that he harassed staff and placed material on the internet identifying the youngster."

"One of Britain's most senior judges issued a warrant for the arrest of Matthew Newman after analysing complaints by lawyers representing social services officials at Gloucestershire County Council during hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London."

"Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court - and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales - concluded that Mr Newman breached orders and was in contempt of court."

"He made findings against Mr Newman in a ruling published on Monday - and also issued a warrant for Mr Newman's arrest on Monday."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3559196/Top-judge-issues-arrest-warrant-man-son-placed-adoption.html#ixzz4766A03Ly

Everyone in family court case must stay secret

"A judge has decided that the identities of everyone involved in a family court case she oversaw must stay secret - including the lawyers."

"Local authority social services bosses asked Recorder Susan Jacklin to make decisions about the futures of three children at a private family court hearing in Bournemouth, Dorset."

"She has ruled that neither the children, the local authority which launched proceedings, nor the solicitors and barristers involved can be identified."

" `The anonymity of the children and members of his family must be strictly preserved,` she has explained in a preamble to her written ruling on the case. `The names of solicitors and counsel have been excluded in order to protect the anonymity and privacy of the children.`"

"Family court judges normally analyses case involving children a private hearings - although journalists can attend. They almost-always anonymise children in rulings but local authorities are often identified and barristers and law firms involved routinely named."

"A politician who campaigns for improvements in the family justice system said the judge's decision not to name lawyers was `nonsense`."

" `How could anyone possibly identify a child by knowing the name of a barrister? Sherlock Holmes would struggle. If that was the case half the barristers in half the courts in England would have to be A.N...` said former Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming. "`It's secrecy for the sake of secrecy.`"

"Nearly three years ago Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division of the High Court and the most senior family court judge in England and Wales, said there was a 'pressing need' for 'much more transparency' in the family justice system. He said the public had a right to know 'what is being done in their name'."

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/ex-mp-criticises-judge-for-family-court-secrecy-ruling-11364049677633#

Paperless family courts

[Christopher Booker]

"From the moment he became head of the Family Division in 2013, he made it clear that he recognised how horribly corrupted our `child protection` system in particular had become; and he began by calling for the ultra-secretive family courts to be opened up to `a gale of publicity`, so that the world could see more of what terrible things were going on there. "

"He made it clear that too many children were being removed from their families without justification, and that taking children into
`care` or for adoption should only be a last resort."

"Munby savaged local authorities and social workers for the way they too often assembled their case for tearing families apart. In particular, he insisted that judges must not rely just on hearsay or unsupported assertions, without giving parents a proper chance to challenge the bizarre allegations that are too often made against them."

"All this was immensely sensible, humane and long overdue."

"But in his recent speech to the Family Law Bar Association, Munby said that, now we have seen his earlier reforms `embedded` with `no backsliding`, it is time for the next step: what has been called the introduction of `entirely digitised and paperless` family courts."

"Out will go all those `bundles` containing thousands of documents, and the laborious verbal presentation of evidence. As much as possible, cases will be conducted electronically. Parents will make their case by filling in an `online questionnaire`, and the judge who `will not need to be in a courtroom will interact electronically with the parties`. "

"What is startling about this is that, for thousands of parents, the most terrifying aspect of falling into the clutches of our `child protection` system is how they find themselves plunged into an inhuman underworld where everything seems rigged against them."

"They may have to listen to what they know to be lies, which they are not able to challenge."

"If they are only to be allowed to `interact with the court electronically`, on an issue more important to them than anything else in the world – to be decided by a judge they cannot even see or meet face to face – they fear that the system will become more heartlessly dehumanised than ever."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12192186/Family-courts-must-submit-to-laptop-justice.html

See UK Column 14 March 2016

The law will be changed to make adoption easier

"The law will be changed so that councils and courts favour adoption over other forms of care for vulnerable children, the government has announced. "

"Education Secretary Nicky Morgan has announced an additional £200m investment in the adoption system over the next four years."

"The move is an attempt to reverse a trend that has seen the number of adoptions, and the number of children being placed for adoption, both fall in recent months."

"A statement released by the Department for Education said government will seek to change legislation as soon as possible, `to make crystal clear that councils and courts must place children with the person best able to care for them right up until their 18th birthday – rather than with carers who can’t provide the support they need over the long term`..."

"Adoption UK chief executive Hugh Thornbery said the legislation and funding announcement is `extremely good news for all of those involved in trying to improve services for adoptive families and adopted children`..."

"John Simmonds, director of policy, research and development at CoramBAAF, said it is essential that the reform that accompanies the new law rebuilds confidence in professionals and judges and they have the resources and support needed to make the right decisions..."

"The drop in children being placed for adoption and the subsequent drop in the number of adoptions taking place are widely accepted to stem from a ruling made in September 2013 by Sir James Munby in the case Re B-S."

"In the ruling, Munby criticised `sloppy practice` of social workers and said that local authorities must provide evidence that all alternatives to adoption had been considered before bringing a case to court."

Read more at Children & Young People Now

No legal aid to stop adoption

"A couple who have struggled to get legal aid while fighting to stop their three-year-old son being adopted could be forgiven for thinking that they are `trapped` in a system which is `neither compassionate nor even humane`, the most senior family court judge in England and Wales has said. "

"Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said the case raised human rights issues relating to people's entitlements to a fair trial and to respect for family life. "

"And he said he wanted everyone involved to bear in mind that a parent's right to `put their case` was one of the oldest principles of English law and dated back over 400 years. "

"The judge initially raised concerns about the couple's difficulties in getting legal aid in October - following a hearing in a family court in Swindon, Wiltshire."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11331495/Top-judge-says-family-courts-are-neither-compassionate-nor-even-humane.html

A four year old must lose his parents

"A four-year-old boy must be taken from his parents because they cannot teach him the difference between right and wrong, a judge said today."

"The mother and father, who are married churchgoers, are also unable to make sure their son stays safe or to feed and bathe him, the most senior family law judge found. "

"workers also said they were worried he was 'not getting the cuddles he needs'."

"The landmark decision by Sir James Munby, President of the High Court Family Division, means the parents, both of whom have learning difficulties, have lost their fight to keep their son, who will be adopted by a new family..."


"The judge added: ‘This is a desperately, indeed, a wrenchingly sad case. D’s parents are devoted to him and have always wanted to do, and have done, their very best for him."

"‘They would never harm him, and have never done so. They are not in any way to blame. They are not to be criticised. It is not in any sense their fault."

"‘They have struggled against great odds to be, as they would want to be, the best possible parents. But ultimately it has proved too much for them.’ "

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3405217/Four-year-old-boy-taken-away-parents-learning-difficulties-social-workers-say-s-not-getting-cuddles-needs.html#ixzz3xhcBw4LQ

Love has nothing to do with it. Parents are judged on their `parenting style` these days.

Persecution strategies

Paul Roberts, whose child was removed by social workers and who documented the event on Youtube, responds to Christopher Booker`s article `A rising tide of anger across Europe at 'Nazi’ social workers.`

When the police broke into my home to assist social services in the kidnap of my newborn son, that I recorded and led to Munby's landmark ruling (J a baby). One of the police quoted the Nuremberg Defense "I'm Just following orders".. History is repeating. Within a few hours of the kidnap I'd asked local police to investigate how the order was obtained, because a child needs to be in imminent danger for an EPO to be obtained legally, and i have recordings of meetings where the SS (social services) clearly say that we are not a danger to our children. The local police got back to me and confirmed that a serious crime had been committed against my family, then he went on to say that all of his colleagues at the main station wanted to take action against the criminals but they'd been ordered by the criminals to stand down or lose their jobs and pensions. How can victims of this legalised child trafficking paedophile ring get any justice, when the (Nazis) criminals are in charge?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11657472/A-rising-tide-of-anger-across-Europe-at-Nazi-social-workers.html

"Here is a flavour of Linda Ärlig’s findings with regard to persecution strategies used by Social Services."  The Swedish academic categorises the strategies in these terms:

The authority knows best
Blackening the names of the parents
Making children and parents to appear in need of care
Pushing through and sticking to decisions that have been made
Disregarding laws and regulations
Destroying relations of importance to the family
Influencing the reader
Disregarding elementary aspects of objectivity

http://www.inquisition21.com/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=353

　
Many of these strategies apply to the Named Person scheme in Scotland .

The authority knows best

Simply by having Named Persons in charge of the wellbeing of each child, the law is saying that state agents know better than parents.

Blackening the names of the parents

By making the Named Person the receptor of all data about a child and its family, third party information based on little more than feelings and intuitions is made available.

Making children and parents appear in need of care

It is called early intervention, getting `in there` before a crisis happens. Who says a crises is going to happen unless the state intervenes? They do.

Pushing through and sticking to decisions that have been made

It is a worrying sign of the state of democracy in Scotland when a group of concerned citizens have to take the Scottish Government to court to contest the Named Person scheme when many parents in Scotland are not fully aware of its implications. SEE HERE  As for political opposition to the legislation, with a few exceptions, it hardly exists.
 
Disregarding laws and regulations

The Scottish Government has disregarded Article 8 of the ECHR: `The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence.` Data protection law might as well not exist.

Destroying relations of importance to the family

The Named Person gets between parents and children and undermines that essential bond.

Influencing the reader

This can be interpreted as influencing reports or influencing people`s perceptions. An event at Hampden Park, June 20, will be rewarding parents for attending with a 25 pound gift voucher, out of public funds. There, they will receive the Government approved version of the Named Person scheme.

Disregarding elementary aspects of objectivity

Here is one example:

"Realising Ambition is a UK-wide £25m Big Lottery Fund programme replicating 25 interventions aimed at preventing children and young people from entering the criminal justice system. Launched in 2012, the five year programme is providing grant funding and specialist support to 22 organisations to refine and build the evidence base of their interventions."

"Realising Ambition is a programme of national and international significance. During the course of the programme the delivery organisations will work with over 130,000 children and young people."

What you have here is policy-based evidence, not evidence-based policy. They have got it back to front.

I have seen it often reported that the Named Person scheme is a well meaning piece of legislation even though it may have over-stretched itself somewhat . I have never believed that. These people know exactly what they are doing. They are building a system which will make it easier to remove children from their families. Under that threat parents will have to jump through hoops to keep their children.

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

Adoptions in free fall

 

Suesspiciousminds addresses recent newspaper articles which lament the fact that adoption rates have fallen in recent times and points to certain court rulings where the judgements have been critical of local authorities who prioritise adoption over alternative arrangements.

"What might have changed is that it is no longer enough to just assert that an alternative is `unsuitable`, but you have to evidence it."

The post provides a very clear summary of recent cases which may be affecting the willingness of local authorities to pursue adoptions as enthusiastically as they once did.

But with pressure on budgets how long will this trend last ?

See http://suesspiciousminds.com/2015/05/15/adoption-rates-in-freefall/

Not long it seems, and there are contradictory messages about adoption trends.

New plans to speed up adoption rates are going to be included in the Queen's Speech, the Department for Education has announced. 

Under the proposals, local authorities will be forced to merge their services, allowing children to be matched with new families sooner.

The government has claimed adoption is "happening at too small and localised a scale". There are more than 3,000 children waiting to be matched at present ? and the majority of them have spent more than 18 months in care.

Edward Timpson, children and families minister, has said the current system "isn't good enough"...

More than 5,000 children were found a permanent home last year, according to the DfE ? a record increase of 26% over 12 months.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/plans-to-speed-up-adoptions-announced-110150 

Parents were not in court for judgement

From Christopher Booker in the Telegraph:

"Why don’t the family courts obey the law?" I quoted a trenchant recent judgment in which Lord Justice Munby, the head of the family courts, went out of his way to emphasise that "one of the oldest principles of our law" is that "no one is to be condemned unheard" – and that "any parents faced with the removal of their child must be entitled to make their case to the court", and to challenge any evidence brought against them."

"I then contrasted this with a case last year in which two parents arrived for a final hearing armed with a pile of evidence they wished to produce to support their case that their two young sons had been wrongly removed from them. (This included photographic evidence to show extensive injuries exhibited by their sons while in care, which were much worse than the single bruise used to justify their removal in the first place.)"

"According to the parents, they were astonished to be told by their lawyers that they could not come into the courtroom (as had happened on three previous occasions). And even more so when the lawyers emerged half an hour later from a private meeting with the judge to say that the case had gone against them and that their boys were to be sent for adoption. The judgment was apparently issued later that day, but the parents were not allowed to see it, and were told there were no grounds for any appeal."

"I found all this surprising, not least because the judge in question, Judge Gareth Jones, has shown himself ready to be highly critical of social workers whom he finds to have acted improperly. When I argued that the case seemed to contradict what Munby called "one of the oldest principles of our law", my article provoked some discussion on legal blogs. Then, 10 months after it was given, the judgment suddenly appeared on the Bailii website (EWFC/OJ/2014/B201). "

"In a key paragraph, Judge Jones referred to "Miss Erwood", representing the mother, and stated "the mother has been present during the course of today but she, like the father, has decided not to remain in this courtroom this afternoon for the purposes of this judgment".

"But the mother, an intelligent woman who is studying for a degree, is adamant that she and the father had not been allowed into the courtroom at all during that day. They had been told to wait in another room until the lawyers emerged to say that the judge had found against them. I gather on unimpeachable authority that the judge was "told" that the parents had "voluntarily left the court", and that it was certainly not his decision that they be excluded from his courtroom."

"On Thursday, I asked Miss Erwood’s chambers to confirm the circumstances whereby her client had been refused entry to the courtroom, but have had no reply. Three days after my last article, those parents were allowed to see their children for the last time. Although this is not the only occasion when I have come across parents being excluded from a family court, this particular case does appear to be such a conspicuous example of how Munby’s principles can be set aside that this matter should not be allowed to rest."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11441698/Mystery-over-parents-denied-their-right-to-enter-the-courtroom.html

LA`s care application condemned as social engineering

"In a scathing judgment, the president of the Family Division has condemned as "social engineering" a local authority’s application to remove a baby boy permanently from the care of his father and place him for adoption. "

"The case was, he said,
an object lesson in, almost textbook example of, how not to embark upon and pursue a care case.""In addressing these failings, Munby P identified "three fundamentally important points".

"The first point, vital for practitioners on the ground, is that findings of fact must be based on evidence, not suspicion and speculation. As the judge observed, material in local authority files is often second or third-hand hearsay. Although hearsay is admissible in care proceedings, if challenged, a local authority will have to establish its accuracy."

"The second fundamental point is that a successful application for a care order must link the facts relied on to the threshold test, i.e., why do the facts asserted lead to the conclusion that the child is at risk of suffering significant harm?"

"(T)he judge’s third fundamental point that, in the "wise and powerful words" of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria [2007] 1 FLR 2050:
society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent…some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.""In the same vein, as Baroness Hale explained in the celebrated Supreme Court decision In re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33: We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the state does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical and mental illnesses or who espouse antisocial political or religious beliefs."  http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2015/02/25/president-of-family-division-inveighs-against-social-engineering-in-adoption-proceedings-marina-wheeler/

These judgements are interesting in light of the current trend for early interventions (social engineering) and the expansion of criminal behaviour to include emotional abuse.

See `Cinderella law; emotional correctness gone mad`

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-cinderella-law-emotional-correctness-gone-mad-9231233.html#

Munby criticises Liverpool judge

"Two weeks ago, Munby again made headlines when he and two other judges in the Appeal Court magisterially tore apart a Liverpool judge, Robert Dodds, for his handling of a case-management hearing involving an intelligent boy, described as an “over-achiever” at school, who was desperate to return to live with his mother."

"In 2012, Liverpool social workers sent the boy to live with his abusive father, who was sent to jail for assaulting him. They then placed him miserably in 14 different foster homes. The social workers were now considering that it might be best for him to return to his mother. But Dodds refused to hear any evidence and, without issuing a formal judgment or even giving his reasons, instantly ordered that the boy must remain in care."
 

"After highly critical rulings from the other two judges, Munby weighed in by saying that he wished to emphasise two “important” points. The first was that it is “one of the oldest principles of our law”, going back 400 years, that “no one is to be condemned unheard”. Any “parent faced with the removal of their child must be entitled to make their case to the court”; and if they wish “to give evidence in answer to a local authority’s care application”, they must be permitted to do so. Secondly “there is the right to confront one’s accusers”, and to cross-examine any important witness on whose evidence the local authority is relying. Judge Dodds’s adoption of such a “ruthlessly truncated process” in this case was “fundamentally unprincipled and unfair”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11412971/Why-dont-the-family-courts-obey-the-law.html

Judge breaks rules about secret imprisonment

"A High Court judge has ordered the name of a woman sent to prison to be kept from the public – despite rules saying no one should be jailed in secret. Mrs Justice Roberts defied instructions from Britain’s most senior judges by banning her from being identified."

"The single mother, who was jailed for seven days for contempt of court, was suspected of planning to flee the UK to stop social workers taking her daughter into care. She was found guilty after failing to surrender her passport and the girl’s on a court’s orders..."

"Her decision to order reporting restrictions was made despite guidance laid down in the Appeal Court less than two years ago on the authority of the most senior judge, the Lord Chief Justice.Mrs Justice Roberts made her ruling after being reminded by lawyers about the Appeal Court directions..."

"Lib Dem MP John Hemming said of the single mother ruling: ‘This is a coup against justice. Civilised countries do not bang people up in secret.’ As the row over her imprisonment grew, High Court officials announced that a new hearing in the case will be held today ‘where the judge will bring the attention of counsel to the mandatory aspect of the 2013 guidance’."

"In May 2013, then Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge and President of the Family Division Sir James Munby declared whenever someone is jailed for contempt they should be publicly named, saying: ‘There are no exceptions.’"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2920899/Judge-defines-rules-jailing-woman-contempt-court-secret-naming-lead-daughter-identified.html#ixzz3PesYNWB4

Keep secret courts says Sue Berelowitz

Deputy Children's Commissioner Sue Berelowitz has said that children will be pushed into committing suicide if the secretive family courts are opened to public scrutiny...

During her address, Miss Berelowitz broke a widely observed media rule and described a common means of suicide. She added: 'I genuinely fear that it is only a matter of time before this deeply misguided motion, which has at its heart, I believe, an utter disregard for the welfare and best interests of children, and is, in my view, therefore unlawful, will result in the death of a child.'

Miss Berelowitz's suicide warning was greeted with amazement among campaigners for open justice and media figures.

Lib Dem MP John Hemming said: 'I don't know what planet this woman is on. If the media had not looked at the abuse of children in care, the events in Rotherham would never have been known.'

Bob Satchwell of the Society of Editors said: 'No-one in the media wants to expose details about children unless there are exceptional reasons to do so. It is strange that Miss Berelowitz uses emotional language when media organisations would be extremely careful in discussing matters like that to prevent copycat actions.

Campaigners for greater openness are not calling for children to be identified in family proceedings. In cases in which proceedings can be reported, identifying children would be contempt of court, for which reporters or editors could go to jail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2870904/Opening-family-courts-cause-child-suicides-Fury-claim-children-s-tsar-secret-justice-battle.html

Perhaps it is the failings of the court system which Miss Berelowitz wishes to remain hidden. A study carried out by the Family Justice Council explored in detail expert witness reports submitted by psychologists to family courts.

Having examined the files on no fewer than 127 cases from the family courts in which psychological ‘experts’ were involved, the results were concerning — indicating an absence of qualifications and competence across a number of areas...

Experts’ were found to be conducting assessments covering crucial family issues without having the experience to do so, and certainly without use of the most up-to-date and accepted methods of assessing risk.

Equally concerning is evidence from the report that the majority of experts are not in practice, so they are not routinely treating clients or working as part of a wider service. Instead, there appear to be a growing number who are ‘professional’ expert witnesses, whose only practice is in providing assessments to a court.

Moreover, in conducting assessments of families, at least 20 per cent of them strayed far beyond their own field of experience, something that has the potential to be highly risky in child cases...For example, we found evidence of witnesses commenting on sex offenders even though they had not practised in this area, or commenting on mental illness without ever working in that field. ..

The research team found a bewildering array of difficulties in how the reports had been conducted. Some ‘experts’ did not seem to value the importance of conducting interviews with those family members they had been asked to assess.

There was also an overuse of psychological tests, many of which had no clinical value or were ‘made up’ by the psychologist involved. ..

On average. experts charge £120 an hour for assessing families and compiling reports. So this is a well-paid profession with tariffs set far higher than for many psychologists working in a full psychological practice...

Family courts clearly operate within the confines of confidentiality in an attempt to protect the interests of children. This inadvertently may have allowed for experts to avoid the close scrutiny — from both their peers and the public — which they might be exposed to in other courts.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2114616/Family-courts-incompetent-highly-paid-called-experts-failing-children.html#ixzz3LiuKmOYz 

Update 14.12.2014

Christopher Booker highlights three puzzles of the child protection system:

(1) The huge number of children removed from their parents on the grounds of potential emotional abuse.

(2) The number of parents condemned because they fail to co-operate with professionals who are attempting to remove their children.

(3) The role of psychologists hired by social workers who label parents with vague conditions such as `borderline personality disorder,` or `narcissism` for which there is no quick remedy; so children are removed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11291388/Baby-with-no-name-judge-defends-the-biased-system.html

The case of the baby with no name

"Lord Justice Munby has insisted that more family court judgments be published Photo: Brian Smith."

"When Lord Justice Munby last year launched his admirable campaign to clean up our family courts from the growing stench of scandal surrounding the way they work, his priority was to strip away that self-protective veil of secrecy that has allowed so many abuses to flourish. His first move, on becoming head of the family division, was to insist that more judgments be published. But, welcome though this was, it is not easy for outsiders to grasp just how biased so many judgments have become without knowing how fairly the hearings that lead up to them are conducted, and how much the judgments themselves leave out."

"An excellent example of this was the widely reported judgment last week by Mrs Justice Parker, in a case described as that of "the baby with no name", whose father had "assaulted one social worker and threatened to kill another". Nowhere did these reports explain why the father had refused to allow his son to be named, any more than they did those other two seemingly damning incidents. Yet having spoken to more than one person professionally involved in this case (but not to the parents), I understand that a full account of the circumstances behind them might have given the public a very different picture."

"The father, who until recently held a senior position in a large company, is a British Indian and a devout Hindu. Ten years ago, when the mother was very young, she had a child with a man who left her. Her difficulties in coping on her own drew the attention of social services and the baby was given to the father. When eventually she met her present Hindu partner and had a second child, Hertfordshire social workers won a supervision order to ensure that her new son was being properly cared for."

"But the Indian father, although said to be "normally a peaceable man who treats everyone with respect", could not hide his increasing impatience at the constant intrusions of social workers into his family’s life, to the point where they applied to take the boy into care. A judge accepted that the child was "thriving", but ruled that, because of the father’s "hostility" to the social workers, the boy should go into foster care. Outside the court, the father accused a social worker of having "lied" in his evidence. The social worker, as confirmed by a lawyer present, punched him on the shoulder. The father, in self-defence, took a swing at his head, and was fined £430 for assault."

"Solely because of this background, when the mother had another baby, it was immediately taken into care. The parents were anxious to have their child named according to Hindu tradition, which involves a temple ceremony, Namakarana, which only the parents, close family and friends can attend. But the social workers insisted that they be present, lest the family "abduct" the child."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10866289/The-real-story-of-the-baby-with-no-name.html?fb

McKenzie friends to pay court costs

　

An American woman, crippled after being beaten up by staff in Holloway Prison, was deported by the UK Border Agency, to be left in her wheelchair at Washington airport without money or a passport.

Since Sir James Munby stepped up last year to become head of our family courts, he has been making heroic efforts to restore sanity and justice to what had become an indefensibly secretive and dysfunctional system. His latest move, just when cuts in legal aid are forcing ever more parents to represent themselves, aided by unpaid legal advisers or "McKenzie Friends", has been to issue new guidelines to ensure that this does not leave them seriously disadvantaged against the serried ranks of taxpayer-funded lawyers on the other side. But the latest recruit to his High Court team, Mrs Justice Ingrid Simler, has now issued a ruling that threatens to tilt the scales of justice against such parents more than ever.

Last September I reported the case of an American woman, crippled after being beaten up by staff in Holloway Prison, who was deported by the UK Border Agency, to be left in her wheelchair at Washington airport without money or a passport. She was originally imprisoned for taking her mildly autistic son from foster care, after social workers had removed him because they said he needed speech therapy which she thought unnecessary. Because she and her son had different names, after she changed hers to avoid detection for overstaying her UK visa, she was charged with having abducted someone else’s child, to which her state-funded barrister advised her to plead guilty. Although DNA tests later confirmed that she was the mother, it was this damning false allegation that led to her being beaten up. Photographs of the boy show how, after a year in "care", her once happy, healthy son now looked lost, miserable and ill. 

After being stuck for weeks at Washington airport, sleeping on benches because she had no money or the documents that would have allowed her to apply for accommodation or look for work, the mother was advised by friends in Britain, including Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie, who run the Association of McKenzie Friends, to apply for a judicial review of her case, which an experienced lawyer told them was full of legal irregularities. Unable to return to the UK without a passport, she drafted a statement with the help of her advisers, which they presented to the High Court in December. A judge adjourned the hearing for them to "validate" their right to speak for her.

This month, however, when none of them could be present, Mrs Justice Simler ruled not just that their case was "totally without merit" but that the lay advisers were now considered to be "parties to the case", and must pay more than £4,000 in court costs. They would have a chance to challenge this, but were told that, if the court found against them, their costs would be even higher. In effect, the judge was sending a warning to all such lay advisers that, by offering help to litigants, they now risk severe financial penalties if their case is lost. As John Hemming MP recognises, "if lay advisors are to be threatened with hefty costs merely for helping victims of a miscarriage of justice, then the rule of law is under threat". This ruling appears so flatly to counter Lord Justice Munby’s latest attempt to achieve a fairer balance between lawyers paid by the state and those "McKenzie Friends" that it would be very interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10775631/Costs-ruling-in-family-court-penalises-those-helping-wronged-parents.html

As well as cuts in legal aid to parents, limits to expert evidence allowed in court, and the intimidation of McKenzie Friends through financial penalties, other family justice reforms also ensure that the system is being streamlined to allow children to be removed from their parents faster than ever without parents having the means to defend themselves or their children.

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, said: "Today marks the largest reform of the family justice system any of us have seen or will see in our professional lifetimes.

"Taken as a whole, these reforms amount to a revolution. There has been, indeed there had to be, a fundamental change in the cultures of the family courts. This is truly a cultural revolution." 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27106066

Many are surprised that Sir James Munby has not spoken out against these draconian reforms that work against parents and their families given his previous pronouncements.

http://alicemooreuk.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/by-christopher-booker-651pm-bst-27-jul.html

Children should know why they are separated

"Children separated from their parents in secret family court judgments must be able to find out the reasons for the court's decisions when they grow up, the most senior family judge has said. Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, said it was "great concern" that the judgments of all family court judges were not routinely transcribed and published."

"This is a "major issue" for the children affected by judgments, he said, who are then unable to find out at a later date why a judge came to a decision that may have affected the course of the rest of their life. He said that there was a "pressing need" for a "definitive record" for concerned parties to refer to if future contentions over the judgment occur."

"Sir James added: "More importantly, in future years: five years, ten years, twenty years, thirty years or fifty years into the future, a child who may, for example, be subject of adoption proceedings, is able to see what the judge actually said."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10705913/Children-separated-from-their-families-by-courts-must-know-why.html

Some good news

Here are a couple of good news stories to celebrate the new year:

(1) Christopher Booker in the Telegraph discusses the judgment of Sir James Munby, the recently appointed President of the Family Division. A father had posted the names of his children and the social workers involved in their case, all over Facebook.

Before ruling on an application from the council for a complete ban on all this, Munby devoted most of his 26-page judgment to the more general question of whether the secrecy imposed on such cases has gone too far. Since the abolition of the death penalty, he says, the kind of orders a judge has to make on whether children should be removed from their parents "are among the most drastic any judge in any jurisdiction is empowered to make". When a young mother is forced to lose her child, she and the child may have to live with the consequences of that decision for, respectively, 70 or 90 years.

Sir James goes on to consider other issues, such as those raised by the increased readiness of anguished parents to tell their stories on the internet, ruling that these should be subject to the same restrictions as are applied to reporting in the press. But when he finally comes to ruling on the council’s application for a complete ban, he strikes out all the items not referring directly to the identity of children or their parents, allowing the naming of Staffordshire, social workers, "expert witnesses" and pretty well everything else.

This is such a startling challenge to prevailing practice that we will have to watch carefully to see how widely Munby’s principles are now followed. Clearly, this unusually humane and intelligent judge is bent on rolling back that blanket of secrecy that has been used to conceal so many countless horror stories from public view.

(2) Parents in Perth and Kinross Council were not aware of the intrusive questions contained in a survey of school children and their consent was assumed unless they actively opted out. It was pointed out that this breached the European Data Protection Directive. The Scottish Government has recently issued some reassurances:

The Scottish Government was not involved in the surveys carried out by Perth and Kinross Council through Dartington Social Research Unit. Where the Scottish Government will be involved in this in the future in other local authorities it will be with oversight of its Analytical Services to ensure it is in line with the strong ethical and quality guidelines it employs for any research it carries out.

Scottish Reporter 

Also read  A Seasonal Quiz for the Cabinet Office