Child protection: MPs must act on the scandal of seized children
Britain's child protection system is off the rails, and only the politicians who built it can fix it, says Christopher Booker
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:00PM BST 30 Oct 2010
Torn apart: the system of child protection is a national scandal Photo: ALAMY Britain's social workers took a beating again last week. On the orders of the children's minister, Tim Loughton, full versions of two harrowing case reviews of the Baby P tragedy were published. They found fault not only with Haringey's social workers but with lawyers, the police and health professionals, Under pressure from social workers, reviews of two similar cases in Yorkshire are still being kept under wraps. Meanwhile, an Ofsted report found that 119 children died or suffered serious injury last year through social workers' failure to intervene.
Still largely hidden from view, however, is that other scandal, in its way just as disturbing, in which the failure of our child protection system is the very opposite: the seizure of thousands of children a year from loving homes, for no good reason.
For parents who fall foul of this system, often on no more evidence than malicious hearsay, the first shock is to find themselves treated like dangerous criminals. To seize children, social workers seem able to enlist the unquestioning support of the police, who arrive mob-handed, six or eight at a time, beating down doors, tearing babies from their mothers' arms, holding parents in custody for up to 36 hours while their children are removed into foster care.
The parents must then wrestle with a Kafka-esque system rigged against them in every way. They find themselves in courts where every normal principle of British justice has been stood on its head. Social workers may give written evidence to a judge which the parents aren't allowed to see. The most outrageous hearsay evidence may be accepted by the court without the parents even being allowed to cross-examine on it.
A key part is played by evidence from supposed "experts", psychiatrists or paediatricians who may be paid up to £35,000 for their reports, and who receive regular work from the social workers involved. Parents are forbidden to call their own independent experts to challenge a case made against them. They are, all too often, pressured into being represented by lawyers who, again, work regularly for the council, who fail to put their case and who turn out to be just part of the same system.
Parents may be forbidden to testify on their own behalf, but must listen for hours, even days, to everyone else involved – including their own lawyers – putting what amounts to a case for the prosecution. The guardian appointed to represent the interests of the child may never have met the child and merely endorses whatever the social workers say.
Not surprisingly, these bizarre practices are so geared to the interests of a corrupted system that, in the latest year for which we have figures (2008), of 7,340 applications for care orders made by social workers, only 20 were refused.
Meanwhile, the children themselves are handed over to foster homes, which receive £400 a week or £20,000 a year for each child, and where many are intensely unhappy and not infrequently abused. Foster carers and social workers routinely conspire to tell bewildered children that their parents neither love them nor want them back. Children and parents meet at rigorously supervised "contact sessions", where any expression of affection or attempt to discuss why the children have been taken from home may be punished by termination of the session or denial of further contact.
The purpose of all this, funded by hundreds of millions of pounds of public money, is partly to keep in being the vast fostering industry, run by dozens of agencies, often owned by ex-social workers, which also receive £20,000 a year for each child they place. Of course, there are many good and responsible foster parents, but statistics show that children in care do very much worse on almost every count, from health to performance in school, than children living with their birth parents.
Another purpose of the system is to ensure that as many children as possible are adopted (at a cost of £36,000 per placement), in accordance with Tony Blair's personal commitment a decade ago that the target for adoptions in Britain should rise by 40 per cent. Councils are still receiving millions of pounds a year for meeting adoption targets.
Yet virtually none of this reaches the outside world because the system is hidden behind an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy. The nominal reason for this is to protect the identity and interests of the children, but secrecy has been so extended that its real aim is to protect the system itself and all those who do so well out of it.
Parents are forbidden to talk to the media or even to their MPs about the injustice they are suffering. Several times in recent months, councils have sought injunctions to prohibit me reporting anything at all about a case, even though no person or even the council itself would be identified. More than once, parents have been threatened with contempt of court and prison if they talk to me or anyone else about how they are being treated.
Very occasionally a judge or senior lawyer breaks ranks by speaking out against such abuse of state power, as when one Court of Appeal judge recently compared the conduct of a council's social workers to what went on in "Stalin's Russia or Mao's China". But in general this cruel, dishonest and venal system continues on its way, hidden from view, accountable to nobody but itself.
The only people in a position to reform this system fundamentally are those who set it up in the first place under the 1989 Children Act – the politicians. But they have, with one or two shining exceptions – notably John Hemming – walked away from the Frankenstein's monster that Parliament created. It is now up to them to support Mr Hemming and all those horribly maltreated families who are campaigning for one of the most outrageous scandals in Britain today to be brought to an end.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Response to GCC Min 26th Aug 2010
The Glasgow City Council minutes pertaining to the meeting relating to The Charter for Grandchildren which was held on 26th August 2010 without our knowledge or invitation.
3.1. The attached charter outlines the rights of children and the responsibilities of
statutory agencies which are already in legislation, primarily the Children (Scotland)
Act 1995 and the Adoption Act (Scotland) 2009, which ensure that in making
decisions on the lives of children a full assessment of need should be undertaken
involving all relevant people. The definition of relevant people includes grandparents.
3.2. It is proposed therefore that the Council is able to acknowledge that the rights of
children and the role that grandparents play is already understood and part of the
practice in working with children and their families.
We would like to respond as follows.
The definition of relevant people includes grandparents:-
Have social services made a new law now accepting that grandparents are relevant persons in their grandchildren’s lives. H. Burgess from the Scottish Government law division has just sent me a letter telling me grandparents have no rights to their grandchildren. Has this head of social services lost the plot?
The Scottish Law Society is also considering this letter from H. Burgess as we put to them that lawyers are saying on Radio and TV that grandparents do have rights, causing massive confusion to our members. They said they will reply after consideration by their sub committee.
The head of Glasgow Social services has stated what is contained in the Charter for Grandchildren is already part of their standard practice. If that be the case then they are implying that thousands of grandparents that have contacted us for help have been untruthful (telling lies) in saying they were not considered by social services regards their grandchildren.. “What a bloody cheek”, yes I repeat “what a bloody cheek” coming from an organisation who are infamous in every country of the UK for the very untruths they infer grandparents are telling.
The reason for campaigning for “The Charter for Grandchildren” was because our experience and research has shown that Grandparents were not being considered to be relevant and were being left out by Professionals, in particular Social Workers, when decisions were being about the welfare of children.
There was clearly enough evidence of this to convince a Labour Scottish Government to create the Charter for Grandchildren and promote the need for grandparents to be considered more in children’s lives. When labour GCC was the first council in Scotland to adopt “The Charter for Grandchildren” we were very proud to be notified of this but we now feel it has been abandoned by the omnipotent power of Social Services and communication from GCC councillors has been skimpy and some have ignored us altogether.
We asked
1, Does your Social Work Dept. recognise that there is a shortfall in considering Grandparents more fully?
2, What new Guidance has been brought in to help guide and support your Staff in implementing The Charter for Grandchildren if you already practice it.
3, Which monitoring procedures are being used to police what social workers are telling grandparents? Is it true Social Workers can tell lies as long as they say it is in the best interests of children.
4, Every member of Grandparents Apart UK has been referred to their MSP in Scotland and MP in England and they in turn ultimately have been unable to help because Social Services do not regard grandparents as relevant persons.
5, Social services have taken advantage of grandparents in a crisis by telling them if they don’t or can’t take their grandchildren in they will never see them again as they will be adopted. What grandparent could or would refuse their flesh and blood in the middle of the night or if their parents were in jail or hospital then lose them again when it is convenient for social services.
6, Grandparents are afraid to contact social services because they are always first to lose contact with their grandchildren when social services become involved.
Our group is not just on a campaign against social services we really believe that the facts strongly tell us that social services’ policies are not the best that can be done for vulnerable children.
Social Services are an essential service because of today’s drug and alcohol culture where grandparents could/should play a role caring for children and in early detection of child neglect and abuse. Our aim is to improve the communication of grandparents and social services in our children’s best interest and to promote the use of mediation that the governments would like to see practised.
Before we really start talking seriously about mediation there are a few points that need to be cleared up. Attitudes need to change somewhat to lay the foundations for mediation to succeed.. The set up as described below does not in anyway encourage mediation. In fact it is detrimental to mediation
Why would mothers consider it when everything is going their way as it is? The government funds these organisations and their very working is in contradiction to the government saying families should work in harmony and grandparents are important to children. How can grandparents be important in children’s lives if they don’t get the chance and are regarded as irrelevant?
1a) It does appear the system works on the basis that women are the only parents capable of rearing children in the traditional family.
b) The government claims grandparents are important to children but refuse to recognise them as relevant people in their lives.
2 a) Social services rarely include grandparents or extended family because the law does not recognise them.
b) Fathers rights are also seldom recognised by social services.
3, Woman’s Aid focuses on protecting woman. The very name tells us that the real best interests of children are secondary to their cause when they are tutoring women how to avoid contact with the paternal side of a child’s family even if grandparents or fathers have done no wrong. This encourages flouting of contact orders because they get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again with it. (Non-compliance is a major issue)
Millions could be saved to families and the public purse if these organisations focussed on what is best for children. It would cut down on legal aid and social service and welfare costs.
Grandparent’s Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
3.1. The attached charter outlines the rights of children and the responsibilities of
statutory agencies which are already in legislation, primarily the Children (Scotland)
Act 1995 and the Adoption Act (Scotland) 2009, which ensure that in making
decisions on the lives of children a full assessment of need should be undertaken
involving all relevant people. The definition of relevant people includes grandparents.
3.2. It is proposed therefore that the Council is able to acknowledge that the rights of
children and the role that grandparents play is already understood and part of the
practice in working with children and their families.
We would like to respond as follows.
The definition of relevant people includes grandparents:-
Have social services made a new law now accepting that grandparents are relevant persons in their grandchildren’s lives. H. Burgess from the Scottish Government law division has just sent me a letter telling me grandparents have no rights to their grandchildren. Has this head of social services lost the plot?
The Scottish Law Society is also considering this letter from H. Burgess as we put to them that lawyers are saying on Radio and TV that grandparents do have rights, causing massive confusion to our members. They said they will reply after consideration by their sub committee.
The head of Glasgow Social services has stated what is contained in the Charter for Grandchildren is already part of their standard practice. If that be the case then they are implying that thousands of grandparents that have contacted us for help have been untruthful (telling lies) in saying they were not considered by social services regards their grandchildren.. “What a bloody cheek”, yes I repeat “what a bloody cheek” coming from an organisation who are infamous in every country of the UK for the very untruths they infer grandparents are telling.
The reason for campaigning for “The Charter for Grandchildren” was because our experience and research has shown that Grandparents were not being considered to be relevant and were being left out by Professionals, in particular Social Workers, when decisions were being about the welfare of children.
There was clearly enough evidence of this to convince a Labour Scottish Government to create the Charter for Grandchildren and promote the need for grandparents to be considered more in children’s lives. When labour GCC was the first council in Scotland to adopt “The Charter for Grandchildren” we were very proud to be notified of this but we now feel it has been abandoned by the omnipotent power of Social Services and communication from GCC councillors has been skimpy and some have ignored us altogether.
We asked
1, Does your Social Work Dept. recognise that there is a shortfall in considering Grandparents more fully?
2, What new Guidance has been brought in to help guide and support your Staff in implementing The Charter for Grandchildren if you already practice it.
3, Which monitoring procedures are being used to police what social workers are telling grandparents? Is it true Social Workers can tell lies as long as they say it is in the best interests of children.
4, Every member of Grandparents Apart UK has been referred to their MSP in Scotland and MP in England and they in turn ultimately have been unable to help because Social Services do not regard grandparents as relevant persons.
5, Social services have taken advantage of grandparents in a crisis by telling them if they don’t or can’t take their grandchildren in they will never see them again as they will be adopted. What grandparent could or would refuse their flesh and blood in the middle of the night or if their parents were in jail or hospital then lose them again when it is convenient for social services.
6, Grandparents are afraid to contact social services because they are always first to lose contact with their grandchildren when social services become involved.
Our group is not just on a campaign against social services we really believe that the facts strongly tell us that social services’ policies are not the best that can be done for vulnerable children.
Social Services are an essential service because of today’s drug and alcohol culture where grandparents could/should play a role caring for children and in early detection of child neglect and abuse. Our aim is to improve the communication of grandparents and social services in our children’s best interest and to promote the use of mediation that the governments would like to see practised.
Before we really start talking seriously about mediation there are a few points that need to be cleared up. Attitudes need to change somewhat to lay the foundations for mediation to succeed.. The set up as described below does not in anyway encourage mediation. In fact it is detrimental to mediation
Why would mothers consider it when everything is going their way as it is? The government funds these organisations and their very working is in contradiction to the government saying families should work in harmony and grandparents are important to children. How can grandparents be important in children’s lives if they don’t get the chance and are regarded as irrelevant?
1a) It does appear the system works on the basis that women are the only parents capable of rearing children in the traditional family.
b) The government claims grandparents are important to children but refuse to recognise them as relevant people in their lives.
2 a) Social services rarely include grandparents or extended family because the law does not recognise them.
b) Fathers rights are also seldom recognised by social services.
3, Woman’s Aid focuses on protecting woman. The very name tells us that the real best interests of children are secondary to their cause when they are tutoring women how to avoid contact with the paternal side of a child’s family even if grandparents or fathers have done no wrong. This encourages flouting of contact orders because they get a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again with it. (Non-compliance is a major issue)
Millions could be saved to families and the public purse if these organisations focussed on what is best for children. It would cut down on legal aid and social service and welfare costs.
Grandparent’s Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Friday, October 29, 2010
Government to introduce compulsory mediation of divorce disputes
Family Justice Review to report in early 2011
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68241
Before we really start talking seriously about mediation there are a few points that need to be cleared up. Attitudes need to change somewhat to lay the foundations for mediation to succeed.. The set up as it is below does not encourage mediation. Why would mothers consider it when everything is going their way as it is? The government funds these organisations and their very working is in contradiction to the government saying families should work in harmony and grandparents are important to children. How can grandparents be important in children’s lives if they don’t get the chance and are irrelevant?
1, a) The government is gender biased as it does appear the system works on the basis that women are the only parents capable of rearing children in the traditional family. How will that work with gay male adoption. b) The government claims grandparents are important to children’s but refuse to recognise them as relevant people in children’s lives.
2a) Social services rarely includes grandparents or extended family because the law does not recognise them as relevant. b) Fathers rights are seldom recognised by social services.
3, Woman’s Aid focuses on protecting woman and do not take into account the best interests of children when they are tutoring women how to avoid contact with the paternal side of a child’s family even if grandparents or fathers have done no wrong. This encourages flouting of contact orders because they get away with it. (Non-compliance)
Millions could be saved to families and the public purse if this farce was resolved. It would cut down on legal aid and social service and welfare costs. Children would not be subject to being used as weapons or blackmail.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68241
Before we really start talking seriously about mediation there are a few points that need to be cleared up. Attitudes need to change somewhat to lay the foundations for mediation to succeed.. The set up as it is below does not encourage mediation. Why would mothers consider it when everything is going their way as it is? The government funds these organisations and their very working is in contradiction to the government saying families should work in harmony and grandparents are important to children. How can grandparents be important in children’s lives if they don’t get the chance and are irrelevant?
1, a) The government is gender biased as it does appear the system works on the basis that women are the only parents capable of rearing children in the traditional family. How will that work with gay male adoption. b) The government claims grandparents are important to children’s but refuse to recognise them as relevant people in children’s lives.
2a) Social services rarely includes grandparents or extended family because the law does not recognise them as relevant. b) Fathers rights are seldom recognised by social services.
3, Woman’s Aid focuses on protecting woman and do not take into account the best interests of children when they are tutoring women how to avoid contact with the paternal side of a child’s family even if grandparents or fathers have done no wrong. This encourages flouting of contact orders because they get away with it. (Non-compliance)
Millions could be saved to families and the public purse if this farce was resolved. It would cut down on legal aid and social service and welfare costs. Children would not be subject to being used as weapons or blackmail.
Children's Commissioner
RAE co-ordinated the campaign for a Children's Commissioner for England for 13 years. The campaign was supported by 130+ organisations – including all the major children’s charities, the Royal Colleges, the Association of Directors of Social Services and local government bodies. It was established after the publication of Martin Rosenbaum and Peter Newell's book 'Taking children seriously' (1991). This explained:
Many adults (especially of course parents) are concerned about children and young people, and raise their voices in support of making society better for them. Many professionals have the welfare of children and young people as their concern. And many children's organisations do valuable work lobbying and campaigning for children's rights. But these organisations would be the first to say that despite the political efforts some adults make on behalf of children and young people, their concerns are a very low political priority and the political process tends to see the issues involved from an adult rather than a child perspective.
Norway was the first country in the world to appoint a Children's Ombudsperson - in 1981 - and in 2002 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged States around the world to establish independent human rights institutions for children. The Committee said in its General Comment no. 2:
While adults and children alike need independent NHRIs to protect their human rights, additional justifications exist for ensuring that children’s human rights are given special attention. These include the facts that children’s developmental state makes them particularly vulnerable to human rights violations; their opinions are still rarely taken into account; most children have no vote and cannot play a meaningful role in the political process that determines Governments’ response to human rights; children encounter significant problems in using the judicial system to protect their rights or to seek remedies for violations of their rights; and children’s access to organizations that may protect their rights is generally limited.
In 2004, the England campaign was finally successful - but not wholly so. After Children's Commissioners had been established in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the then Government agreed to introduce the role for England. However, the initial plans set out in the Children Bill, introduced into the Lords in March 2004, barely resembled a Children's Commissioner. They were vigorously attacked by a cross-section of Peers, led by Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrats) and Earl Howe (Conservatives). In the Commons, the push for a genuine rights-based Children's Commissioner was led by Hilton Dawson (former Labour MP; now chief executive of British Association of Social Workers) and Tim Loughton (Conservative MP; now junior Minister in the Department for Education). As the Bill progressed through Parliament, several significant changes were made (shown in the order they were achieved):
1. The Commissioner “must” have regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
2. There is a duty on the Commissioner to prepare child-friendly materials
3. The Commissioner has the power of entry to institutional premises “at any reasonable time” and the right to interview children, if appropriate in private
4. “Any person exercising functions under any enactment” has to provide the Commissioner with information reasonably requested
5. The Commissioner's remit includes care leavers and young people with learning disabilities up to the age of 21
6. The Commissioner has the power to initiate formal inquiries after consulting Secretary of State
7. The Commissioner’s reports have absolute privilege and other statements have qualified privilege in relation to law on defamation
8. In relation to an inquiry directed by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State can only make amendments to an inquiry report in order to protect the identity of a child
9. The Commissioner has the power to require bodies to respond to his/her recommendations
10. The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Commissioner’s annual report before each House of Parliament “as soon as possible”
11. Children have to be involved in the recruitment of the Commissioner.
On 10 November 2004, cross-party Peers pushed for the second time for a strong rights-based Children's Commissioner. The amendment that would have given children in England a Commissioner on a par with the rest of the UK and Europe was lost in the final stage of the Children Bill’s passage by 105 to 117 votes.
Peers who voted against a strong, rights-based Commissioner in November 2004:
• 109 Labour Peers
• 3 Cross-benchers
• 2 Ulster Unionist Peers
• 1 Conservative Peer
• 1 Liberal Democrat Peer
• 1 Independent Labour Peer
Sir Professor Al Aynsley-Green was appointed England's first Children's Commissioner in March 2005. Dr. Maggie Atkinson took over from Sir Al in March 2010. Click here to find out more about the Office of Children's Commissioner (opens new website).
The Commissioner campaign officially disbanded in November 2004 and was reconvened in July 2010 following the announcement of the Dunford Review.
In 2007, CRAE's campaign for a Children's Commissioner was one of eight case studies included in an NCVO publication 'Campaigning for success. How to cope if you achieve your campaign goal'.
Many adults (especially of course parents) are concerned about children and young people, and raise their voices in support of making society better for them. Many professionals have the welfare of children and young people as their concern. And many children's organisations do valuable work lobbying and campaigning for children's rights. But these organisations would be the first to say that despite the political efforts some adults make on behalf of children and young people, their concerns are a very low political priority and the political process tends to see the issues involved from an adult rather than a child perspective.
Norway was the first country in the world to appoint a Children's Ombudsperson - in 1981 - and in 2002 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child urged States around the world to establish independent human rights institutions for children. The Committee said in its General Comment no. 2:
While adults and children alike need independent NHRIs to protect their human rights, additional justifications exist for ensuring that children’s human rights are given special attention. These include the facts that children’s developmental state makes them particularly vulnerable to human rights violations; their opinions are still rarely taken into account; most children have no vote and cannot play a meaningful role in the political process that determines Governments’ response to human rights; children encounter significant problems in using the judicial system to protect their rights or to seek remedies for violations of their rights; and children’s access to organizations that may protect their rights is generally limited.
In 2004, the England campaign was finally successful - but not wholly so. After Children's Commissioners had been established in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, the then Government agreed to introduce the role for England. However, the initial plans set out in the Children Bill, introduced into the Lords in March 2004, barely resembled a Children's Commissioner. They were vigorously attacked by a cross-section of Peers, led by Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrats) and Earl Howe (Conservatives). In the Commons, the push for a genuine rights-based Children's Commissioner was led by Hilton Dawson (former Labour MP; now chief executive of British Association of Social Workers) and Tim Loughton (Conservative MP; now junior Minister in the Department for Education). As the Bill progressed through Parliament, several significant changes were made (shown in the order they were achieved):
1. The Commissioner “must” have regard to the Convention on the Rights of the Child
2. There is a duty on the Commissioner to prepare child-friendly materials
3. The Commissioner has the power of entry to institutional premises “at any reasonable time” and the right to interview children, if appropriate in private
4. “Any person exercising functions under any enactment” has to provide the Commissioner with information reasonably requested
5. The Commissioner's remit includes care leavers and young people with learning disabilities up to the age of 21
6. The Commissioner has the power to initiate formal inquiries after consulting Secretary of State
7. The Commissioner’s reports have absolute privilege and other statements have qualified privilege in relation to law on defamation
8. In relation to an inquiry directed by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State can only make amendments to an inquiry report in order to protect the identity of a child
9. The Commissioner has the power to require bodies to respond to his/her recommendations
10. The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the Commissioner’s annual report before each House of Parliament “as soon as possible”
11. Children have to be involved in the recruitment of the Commissioner.
On 10 November 2004, cross-party Peers pushed for the second time for a strong rights-based Children's Commissioner. The amendment that would have given children in England a Commissioner on a par with the rest of the UK and Europe was lost in the final stage of the Children Bill’s passage by 105 to 117 votes.
Peers who voted against a strong, rights-based Commissioner in November 2004:
• 109 Labour Peers
• 3 Cross-benchers
• 2 Ulster Unionist Peers
• 1 Conservative Peer
• 1 Liberal Democrat Peer
• 1 Independent Labour Peer
Sir Professor Al Aynsley-Green was appointed England's first Children's Commissioner in March 2005. Dr. Maggie Atkinson took over from Sir Al in March 2010. Click here to find out more about the Office of Children's Commissioner (opens new website).
The Commissioner campaign officially disbanded in November 2004 and was reconvened in July 2010 following the announcement of the Dunford Review.
In 2007, CRAE's campaign for a Children's Commissioner was one of eight case studies included in an NCVO publication 'Campaigning for success. How to cope if you achieve your campaign goal'.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Government to introduce compulsory mediation of divorce disputes
Government to introduce compulsory mediation of divorce disputes
Family Justice Review to report in early 2011
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68241
The Daily Telegraph reports that a government review is to recommend the introduction of a compulsory mediation stage before any financial or custodial dispute is heard in court.
David Norgrove, the chair of the Family Justice Review panel, is quoted as saying that a new mediation stage could reduce the legal aid budget by £100 million.
The plan, which it is said will be published early next year, will also introduce briefer and simpler hearings for cases that cannot be resolved by mediation.
The Daily Telegraph article can be reviewed as follows:
Lawyers to be kept out of divorce battles
Lawyers will be kept out of thousands of family dispute cases every year in a shake-up of divorce laws.
Published: 7:30AM BST 18 Oct 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8070122/Lawyers-to-be-kept-out-of-divorce-battles.html
-----------------------------
First ever National Pro Bono Centre opens
Centre offers access to family law services
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68235
The first ever National Pro Bono Centre opens formally on Tuesday 19 October at its new premises at 48 Chancery Lane, followed by a celebration of pro bono at the Royal Courts of Justice. Guests will include the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, the Attorney General; Jonathan Djanogly MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice; and the Rt Hon The Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice.
The NPBC brings together national legal charities the Bar Pro Bono Unit, LawWorks (the Solicitors' Pro Bono Group) and the ILEX Pro Bono Forum. "Hot desk" facilities will allow the development of new initiatives.
The coming together of the three charities, which work with Citizens Advice Bureaux, Law Centres and frontline agencies across England & Wales, aims to provide a more joined-up service to members of the public and to community groups in need of legal help but who cannot access legal aid and who cannot afford to pay legal fees. Whilst not a replacement for legal aid, the pro bono services offered by the charities enables access to a wide range of legal professionals across the broadest spread of practice areas and across the whole of England & Wales.
For individuals, this means access to essential legal services such as family law, as well as housing, employment and immigration law.
The centre website can be accessed via http://www.nationalprobonocentre.org.uk/.
---------------------------
Resolution warns that cost savings threaten family justice
David Allison urges government to resist ‘quick fix solutions’
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68913
Resolution has called for a return to evidence based policymaking on family law and warned against simplistic solutions to the complexities of family breakdown. These calls were made in response to an interview in The Times with David Norgrove, chair of the government's Family Justice Review, which reports him as saying that keeping family disputes out of court would create huge cost savings and suggests that compulsory family mediation could be a way forward.
David Allison, Chair of Resolution, commented:
"90 percent of family cases are already settled out of court, often with the help of a family lawyer, so the suggestion that the role of the lawyer needs to be reduced flies in the face of the evidence. 80 percent of people faced with family breakdown turn first to a family lawyer.
"Our members recognise that each family needs a process that is right for them – that can be mediation, but might also be collaborative law, parent information and in some cases court.
"We are deeply concerned that in its hurry to bring about cost-saving reforms, the Government is going to narrow the gateway to court to such an extent that those families who need it cannot access it."
David Allison also warned that the Government appeared to be rushing ahead with its support for mediation as the only solution to the problems of the family justice system without doing the groundwork.
"How many suitably qualified and regulated family mediators are there in the country? Currently anybody can set up as a mediator. We understand that there may be fewer than 800 mediators who belong to a self regulating body and are concerned that there may not be enough mediators out there to meet demand if it is made compulsory in family cases, or if a compulsory assessment is required before going to court."
David Allison concluded: "We urge the government to properly investigate all alternatives, including collaborative law, arbitration and early parent information, before opting for a quick fix solution to the problems facing the family justice system."
Law Society President Linda Lee responded to the Government announcement of cuts of up to £350m in the legal aid budget.
"While the figure of £350m is less than some had feared, losing this amount of money from the system will inevitably prove to be a significant blow to legal service provision and access to justice. A creaking system is going to be less able to deliver the needs of the vulnerable in society.
"It is a basic feature of a democratic society which supports the rule of law that vulnerable people, whether they are children, or have mental health or housing problems, are accused of crimes or have suffered loss, are able to have access to legal advice and representation to secure justice.
"The legal aid budget does not have to be cut by restricting its availability. The best approach is to tackle the need for legal aid such as simplifying the law, addressing poor decision making by public bodies, and by reforming inefficient Court processes - the real causes of the rising expenditure."
-----------------------------
R (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1137
Court of Appeal refused Father’s appeal against an order granting the Mother leave to remove their 5 year old son permanently to Australia.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68567
The Father appealed to the Court of Appeal against an order granting the Mother's application for leave to remove the child of the family permanently to Australia. The appeal was dismissed.
The Father appealed the Circuit Judge's decision on the basis that he had been plainly wrong to have proceeded without the benefit of a Cafcass report. The Court of Appeal held that while such reports are quite often prepared they are not invariably prepared and in this case was of limited use. In particular, observation of contact would not assist the court because it was not disputed by the Mother that in principle the child had a good relationship with the Father and that at age 5, the child was too young to express wishes and feelings of any real significance.
The further ground of appeal that the child would lose the important relationship he had with his half-siblings was held not to hold any weight because those half-siblings would soon be adults and probably be living away from home.
The Father further sought to bolster his appeal with allegations that the Mother's mental health had not been properly investigated and that the Mother's motivation was to curtail the Father's relationship with the child by the move to Australia. The Court of Appeal held there was material before the judge at first instance to allow him to arrive at the conclusion that this was not the Mother's motivation and that the mental health allegation was not made out because the Mother had assumed full care of the child with no complaint from the Father.
One of the Father's major grounds in his appeal was held to be misconceived: that the judge did not make an actual order for contact. While there may be a contact attachment to an order, the English court in granting leave is surrendering its control over the child to a foreign court and a contact order is an order taking effect until further order of the English court.
While the Father pursued in his appeal the failure of the Mother to specifically address the effect on her of a refusal of her application, the judge did address the point in his judgment and the Court of Appeal noted that it is easy for an applicant to say how devastated they will be if the application is refused, the court can still ascertain the effect of the refusal by way of inference from the surrounding circumstances.
Summary by Richard Tambling, barrister, 1 Garden Court
Family Justice Review to report in early 2011
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68241
The Daily Telegraph reports that a government review is to recommend the introduction of a compulsory mediation stage before any financial or custodial dispute is heard in court.
David Norgrove, the chair of the Family Justice Review panel, is quoted as saying that a new mediation stage could reduce the legal aid budget by £100 million.
The plan, which it is said will be published early next year, will also introduce briefer and simpler hearings for cases that cannot be resolved by mediation.
The Daily Telegraph article can be reviewed as follows:
Lawyers to be kept out of divorce battles
Lawyers will be kept out of thousands of family dispute cases every year in a shake-up of divorce laws.
Published: 7:30AM BST 18 Oct 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8070122/Lawyers-to-be-kept-out-of-divorce-battles.html
-----------------------------
First ever National Pro Bono Centre opens
Centre offers access to family law services
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68235
The first ever National Pro Bono Centre opens formally on Tuesday 19 October at its new premises at 48 Chancery Lane, followed by a celebration of pro bono at the Royal Courts of Justice. Guests will include the Rt Hon Dominic Grieve QC MP, the Attorney General; Jonathan Djanogly MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice; and the Rt Hon The Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice.
The NPBC brings together national legal charities the Bar Pro Bono Unit, LawWorks (the Solicitors' Pro Bono Group) and the ILEX Pro Bono Forum. "Hot desk" facilities will allow the development of new initiatives.
The coming together of the three charities, which work with Citizens Advice Bureaux, Law Centres and frontline agencies across England & Wales, aims to provide a more joined-up service to members of the public and to community groups in need of legal help but who cannot access legal aid and who cannot afford to pay legal fees. Whilst not a replacement for legal aid, the pro bono services offered by the charities enables access to a wide range of legal professionals across the broadest spread of practice areas and across the whole of England & Wales.
For individuals, this means access to essential legal services such as family law, as well as housing, employment and immigration law.
The centre website can be accessed via http://www.nationalprobonocentre.org.uk/.
---------------------------
Resolution warns that cost savings threaten family justice
David Allison urges government to resist ‘quick fix solutions’
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68913
Resolution has called for a return to evidence based policymaking on family law and warned against simplistic solutions to the complexities of family breakdown. These calls were made in response to an interview in The Times with David Norgrove, chair of the government's Family Justice Review, which reports him as saying that keeping family disputes out of court would create huge cost savings and suggests that compulsory family mediation could be a way forward.
David Allison, Chair of Resolution, commented:
"90 percent of family cases are already settled out of court, often with the help of a family lawyer, so the suggestion that the role of the lawyer needs to be reduced flies in the face of the evidence. 80 percent of people faced with family breakdown turn first to a family lawyer.
"Our members recognise that each family needs a process that is right for them – that can be mediation, but might also be collaborative law, parent information and in some cases court.
"We are deeply concerned that in its hurry to bring about cost-saving reforms, the Government is going to narrow the gateway to court to such an extent that those families who need it cannot access it."
David Allison also warned that the Government appeared to be rushing ahead with its support for mediation as the only solution to the problems of the family justice system without doing the groundwork.
"How many suitably qualified and regulated family mediators are there in the country? Currently anybody can set up as a mediator. We understand that there may be fewer than 800 mediators who belong to a self regulating body and are concerned that there may not be enough mediators out there to meet demand if it is made compulsory in family cases, or if a compulsory assessment is required before going to court."
David Allison concluded: "We urge the government to properly investigate all alternatives, including collaborative law, arbitration and early parent information, before opting for a quick fix solution to the problems facing the family justice system."
Law Society President Linda Lee responded to the Government announcement of cuts of up to £350m in the legal aid budget.
"While the figure of £350m is less than some had feared, losing this amount of money from the system will inevitably prove to be a significant blow to legal service provision and access to justice. A creaking system is going to be less able to deliver the needs of the vulnerable in society.
"It is a basic feature of a democratic society which supports the rule of law that vulnerable people, whether they are children, or have mental health or housing problems, are accused of crimes or have suffered loss, are able to have access to legal advice and representation to secure justice.
"The legal aid budget does not have to be cut by restricting its availability. The best approach is to tackle the need for legal aid such as simplifying the law, addressing poor decision making by public bodies, and by reforming inefficient Court processes - the real causes of the rising expenditure."
-----------------------------
R (A Child) [2010] EWCA Civ 1137
Court of Appeal refused Father’s appeal against an order granting the Mother leave to remove their 5 year old son permanently to Australia.
http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed68567
The Father appealed to the Court of Appeal against an order granting the Mother's application for leave to remove the child of the family permanently to Australia. The appeal was dismissed.
The Father appealed the Circuit Judge's decision on the basis that he had been plainly wrong to have proceeded without the benefit of a Cafcass report. The Court of Appeal held that while such reports are quite often prepared they are not invariably prepared and in this case was of limited use. In particular, observation of contact would not assist the court because it was not disputed by the Mother that in principle the child had a good relationship with the Father and that at age 5, the child was too young to express wishes and feelings of any real significance.
The further ground of appeal that the child would lose the important relationship he had with his half-siblings was held not to hold any weight because those half-siblings would soon be adults and probably be living away from home.
The Father further sought to bolster his appeal with allegations that the Mother's mental health had not been properly investigated and that the Mother's motivation was to curtail the Father's relationship with the child by the move to Australia. The Court of Appeal held there was material before the judge at first instance to allow him to arrive at the conclusion that this was not the Mother's motivation and that the mental health allegation was not made out because the Mother had assumed full care of the child with no complaint from the Father.
One of the Father's major grounds in his appeal was held to be misconceived: that the judge did not make an actual order for contact. While there may be a contact attachment to an order, the English court in granting leave is surrendering its control over the child to a foreign court and a contact order is an order taking effect until further order of the English court.
While the Father pursued in his appeal the failure of the Mother to specifically address the effect on her of a refusal of her application, the judge did address the point in his judgment and the Court of Appeal noted that it is easy for an applicant to say how devastated they will be if the application is refused, the court can still ascertain the effect of the refusal by way of inference from the surrounding circumstances.
Summary by Richard Tambling, barrister, 1 Garden Court
Reply from Scottish Law Sociaty Re- Grandparents Rights.
Some time agow i wrote to the Scottish Law Society asking why lawyers are persistently saying that grandparents have rights to their grandchildren when we have a letter from the Scottish Government Law Division stating clearely that they do not.
THE LAW SOCIETY of SCOTLAND
www.lawscot.org.uk
Mr Jimmy Deuchars Grandparents Apart UK 22 Alness Crescent Glasgow G521PJ
2010 Gardens Edinburgh EH3 7YR
Legal Post LPI Edinburgh -1
T: 0131226 7411 F: 0131 2252934
Texlphone: 0131 476 8359
Thank you for your letter 6 October 2010 regarding the rights of grandparents and their legal rights to have contact with their grandchildren. In order to give you a full answer I have asked our Family Law Sub Committee to consider this and advise me. I will respond thereafter.
Yours sincerely
Lorna Jack Chief Executive
E-mail: lornajack@lawscot.org.uk Telephone: 0131 476 8157
THE LAW SOCIETY of SCOTLAND
www.lawscot.org.uk
Mr Jimmy Deuchars Grandparents Apart UK 22 Alness Crescent Glasgow G521PJ
2010 Gardens Edinburgh EH3 7YR
Legal Post LPI Edinburgh -1
T: 0131226 7411 F: 0131 2252934
Texlphone: 0131 476 8359
Thank you for your letter 6 October 2010 regarding the rights of grandparents and their legal rights to have contact with their grandchildren. In order to give you a full answer I have asked our Family Law Sub Committee to consider this and advise me. I will respond thereafter.
Yours sincerely
Lorna Jack Chief Executive
E-mail: lornajack@lawscot.org.uk Telephone: 0131 476 8157
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Glasgow Social Services ruined this family forever.
Press release.
Immediate.
Glasgow Social services have written to the McMichaels to say they have no locus on this case. Washing their hands of this injustice does not exonerate them from the fact that by their unlawful actions they have ruined this couples life.
How long will social services be allowed to devastate families with their god like powers. Families are ruined by their snatching of children and alienating them from relatives who could care for them rather than adoption to strangers. Children are treated by social services like goods in a business deal. This is heartless and inhumane.
We need a social service that cares, not one that is feared by ordinary people especially grandparents who are afraid that they are the first to lose contact with their grandchildren if they become involved with social services.
Read Margaret and Tony story of terrible injustice.
The couple had their son removed by social workers from Glasgow Southern General Hospital within 3 weeks of him being born. The excuse was it was for the child’s future welfare. They fought against social services by taking their case to the court of Human Rights in Strasbourg who ruled Glasgow social services had unlawfully removed their child. Their child was never returned.
The authorities offered a written apology and offered to pay the couples legal costs and compensation of £2000.00p rising to about £9K. The price they put on their child’s life. The wee boy was also spirited away and lost in the adoption system. Nothing could compensate the terrible damage done to them by social services in Glasgow.
Margaret had been working with severely disabled children and had excellent references praising her for her loving care but still her child was snatched from her by social services negligence. Who better to look after her own son than Margaret with her references?
This happened 22 years ago and the McMichaels have tried to find him ever since. Private detectives eventually traced their son but.their letters and communications have been constantly blocked. Margaret said “we could be grandparents for all we know” but they still have hope that someday they will know the son that was brutally torn from them. They would love someone to do the decent thing and let them have contact with their adult son.
Ends
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Immediate.
Glasgow Social services have written to the McMichaels to say they have no locus on this case. Washing their hands of this injustice does not exonerate them from the fact that by their unlawful actions they have ruined this couples life.
How long will social services be allowed to devastate families with their god like powers. Families are ruined by their snatching of children and alienating them from relatives who could care for them rather than adoption to strangers. Children are treated by social services like goods in a business deal. This is heartless and inhumane.
We need a social service that cares, not one that is feared by ordinary people especially grandparents who are afraid that they are the first to lose contact with their grandchildren if they become involved with social services.
Read Margaret and Tony story of terrible injustice.
The couple had their son removed by social workers from Glasgow Southern General Hospital within 3 weeks of him being born. The excuse was it was for the child’s future welfare. They fought against social services by taking their case to the court of Human Rights in Strasbourg who ruled Glasgow social services had unlawfully removed their child. Their child was never returned.
The authorities offered a written apology and offered to pay the couples legal costs and compensation of £2000.00p rising to about £9K. The price they put on their child’s life. The wee boy was also spirited away and lost in the adoption system. Nothing could compensate the terrible damage done to them by social services in Glasgow.
Margaret had been working with severely disabled children and had excellent references praising her for her loving care but still her child was snatched from her by social services negligence. Who better to look after her own son than Margaret with her references?
This happened 22 years ago and the McMichaels have tried to find him ever since. Private detectives eventually traced their son but.their letters and communications have been constantly blocked. Margaret said “we could be grandparents for all we know” but they still have hope that someday they will know the son that was brutally torn from them. They would love someone to do the decent thing and let them have contact with their adult son.
Ends
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Friday, October 22, 2010
Launch of New Mediation service in South Lanarkshire
We need some grandparents to come from the South Lanarkshire area to speak at the launch of this servive about the problems thay have as grandparents contacting your grandchildren and with social services. We know it is difficult if your case is ongoing and you don't want your neighbours knowing your business so no names will be needed if that's what you prefer.
contact Jimmy 0141 882 5658
contact Jimmy 0141 882 5658
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Letter to Parliamentary Under-secretary of Justice
Jonathan Djanogly MP
Parliamentary Under-secretary of
State for Justice.
102 Petty France,
London.
SW 1H 9AJ 21th October 2010
Dear Mr Djanogly,
We through personal experience founded Grandparents Apart UK in 2001 in Glasgow. In that time we have had thousands of grandparents’ problems through our helpline and believe it or not the majority of them are English with Welsh, Irish and of course Scottish as well. Our group worked with the Scottish Executive in the creation of The Charter for Grandchildren and we feel should be included to represent our members in England in the talks about the charter and abolishing the leave to apply.
The Charter for Grandchildren was created as advisory only and was made the responsibility of the local authority to implement it. We feel it should have more recognition than just advisory as it easily ignored by professionals that deal in the welfare of children. We lobbied the Glasgow City Council to accept it and if successful thereafter to every council in Scotland and the UK.
Glasgow City Council passed the charter on 18th February 2010 for consideration as to implementing part or whole of it. Shortly after the meeting on 26th August Councillor Sadie Docherty phoned me to say it had been passed and emailed me on 20th October 2010 to say they are waiting on the response from Social Services and the dept for Schools and Families as to how they were going to implement it.
At first our intention was to obtain legal rights of contact for grandparents. This was defeated after a vote in the Scottish Parliament, as not being in the best interests of children. Parents had the idea that grandparents would have more rights than them. We did listen and our new proposal was to give the rights to the children via the Charter for Grandchildren which is family friendly and not treading on parents toes. This ensures children will have the best that grandparents can offer.
What the charter contains is legislated already but it is not focussed enough for easy compliance and a Scottish government by their creation of the charter felt the same way. Our children were losing out on the love, stability and protection grandparents can offer.
We look forward to hearing from you and to be included as we feel our experience is invaluable for the best interests of children.
Your sincerely
Jimmy Deuchars (manager)
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness Cresnet
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Parliamentary Under-secretary of
State for Justice.
102 Petty France,
London.
SW 1H 9AJ 21th October 2010
Dear Mr Djanogly,
We through personal experience founded Grandparents Apart UK in 2001 in Glasgow. In that time we have had thousands of grandparents’ problems through our helpline and believe it or not the majority of them are English with Welsh, Irish and of course Scottish as well. Our group worked with the Scottish Executive in the creation of The Charter for Grandchildren and we feel should be included to represent our members in England in the talks about the charter and abolishing the leave to apply.
The Charter for Grandchildren was created as advisory only and was made the responsibility of the local authority to implement it. We feel it should have more recognition than just advisory as it easily ignored by professionals that deal in the welfare of children. We lobbied the Glasgow City Council to accept it and if successful thereafter to every council in Scotland and the UK.
Glasgow City Council passed the charter on 18th February 2010 for consideration as to implementing part or whole of it. Shortly after the meeting on 26th August Councillor Sadie Docherty phoned me to say it had been passed and emailed me on 20th October 2010 to say they are waiting on the response from Social Services and the dept for Schools and Families as to how they were going to implement it.
At first our intention was to obtain legal rights of contact for grandparents. This was defeated after a vote in the Scottish Parliament, as not being in the best interests of children. Parents had the idea that grandparents would have more rights than them. We did listen and our new proposal was to give the rights to the children via the Charter for Grandchildren which is family friendly and not treading on parents toes. This ensures children will have the best that grandparents can offer.
What the charter contains is legislated already but it is not focussed enough for easy compliance and a Scottish government by their creation of the charter felt the same way. Our children were losing out on the love, stability and protection grandparents can offer.
We look forward to hearing from you and to be included as we feel our experience is invaluable for the best interests of children.
Your sincerely
Jimmy Deuchars (manager)
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness Cresnet
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Grandparents are being untruthful
Glasgow City Council Meeting
Item Minute - 26 August 2010
Charter for Grandchildren – Position noted.
With reference to the minutes of the Council of 18th February 2010 (Print 7, page 641) approving a motion that this Council resolve to examine the benefits of adopting the practices outlined in “The Charter for Grandchildren”, there was submitted and noted a report by the Executive Director of Social Care Services
(1)
Outlining the Charter for Grandchildren which detailed the rights of children and the responsibilities of statutory agencies which were already in legislation and ensured that, in making decisions on the lives of children, a full assessment of need should be undertaken involving all relevant people, including grandparents; and
(2)
Advising that this Council acknowledged that the rights of children and the role that grandparents played was already understood and part of practice in working with children and families.
Glasgow City Council, City Chambers, Glasgow G2 1DU
Committee considering the Charter for Grandchildren.
The committee headed by Councillor Sadie Docherty has received a report from the head of Glasgow’s social service stating that what is contained in the Charter for Grandchildren is already practised by his department. This infers that all you grandparents, who have been humiliated, ignored, cast aside and experienced and told “you have no rights to your grandchildren” and “we don’t need to speak to you” are not being truthful because he said his department does include grandparents as relevant persons.
Item Minute - 26 August 2010
Charter for Grandchildren – Position noted.
With reference to the minutes of the Council of 18th February 2010 (Print 7, page 641) approving a motion that this Council resolve to examine the benefits of adopting the practices outlined in “The Charter for Grandchildren”, there was submitted and noted a report by the Executive Director of Social Care Services
(1)
Outlining the Charter for Grandchildren which detailed the rights of children and the responsibilities of statutory agencies which were already in legislation and ensured that, in making decisions on the lives of children, a full assessment of need should be undertaken involving all relevant people, including grandparents; and
(2)
Advising that this Council acknowledged that the rights of children and the role that grandparents played was already understood and part of practice in working with children and families.
Glasgow City Council, City Chambers, Glasgow G2 1DU
Committee considering the Charter for Grandchildren.
The committee headed by Councillor Sadie Docherty has received a report from the head of Glasgow’s social service stating that what is contained in the Charter for Grandchildren is already practised by his department. This infers that all you grandparents, who have been humiliated, ignored, cast aside and experienced and told “you have no rights to your grandchildren” and “we don’t need to speak to you” are not being truthful because he said his department does include grandparents as relevant persons.
5.5 years to get justice for a child.
Another successful day! A member’s seven year old grandaughter was in the Crown Court today as a Crown Prosecution Witness against her mother and step father.
They had trouble with the video link but the little girl could be heard saying she was there to tell the truth, which is very good for this particular little girl as she was kept back for years so that her mother and step father could carry on with their Socialising.
The child was also a claimant of DLA a state brought on due to her lack of care and attention.
So although delayed in many areas the little girl who alleged that her step father came into her bedroom through the night after arriving home in an intoxicated state and punched her, she is now safe from these two people who will be sentenced on the 8th November 2010.
What is annoying is that the Social Services were alerted to this child’s abuse in 2005 and even when the child had been placed in care three times in a six months period they still maintained there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations made by her against this couple who had the responsibility for her. A Staff Nurse and Doctor’s report from the local A&E reinforced the concerns many people had regarding this little girl but still she was refused the protection that was needed.
This story has still a long way to go but there are many culprits of not listening to this little girl, but she is a happy girl tonight safe with her dad and grandparents.
I am pleased to share a happy outcome with you.
They had trouble with the video link but the little girl could be heard saying she was there to tell the truth, which is very good for this particular little girl as she was kept back for years so that her mother and step father could carry on with their Socialising.
The child was also a claimant of DLA a state brought on due to her lack of care and attention.
So although delayed in many areas the little girl who alleged that her step father came into her bedroom through the night after arriving home in an intoxicated state and punched her, she is now safe from these two people who will be sentenced on the 8th November 2010.
What is annoying is that the Social Services were alerted to this child’s abuse in 2005 and even when the child had been placed in care three times in a six months period they still maintained there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations made by her against this couple who had the responsibility for her. A Staff Nurse and Doctor’s report from the local A&E reinforced the concerns many people had regarding this little girl but still she was refused the protection that was needed.
This story has still a long way to go but there are many culprits of not listening to this little girl, but she is a happy girl tonight safe with her dad and grandparents.
I am pleased to share a happy outcome with you.
Shame errant Social Workers
http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.com/?spref=fb
thursday
We are ashamed to be British, who would have thought this goes on in our society? We wouldn’t think it, because we don’t know it’s going on!
That’s about to change, we have but one tool at our disposal, a tool even more powerful than social worker’s having their day in court against hapless families, that tool is The Internet a machine so vast it covers the globe in seconds. Maybe, just maybe they have met their match. If you have been on the end of “their justice” it is more than likely you have nothing more to loose, please feel at liberty to tell it like it really is, name all involved, without revealing your identity.
Say NO to gagging orders, how dare they! We know its not in the interests of the child, its in the interests of the perverse judgments and scrappy evidence that could never stand up in a ‘proper’ court furthermore it could cause a public outcry if it ever got out. We’ve had enough of the injustice and the secret courts, this must end and it must end NOW, the outcry is about to begin.
Its not enough to tell your story, naming names is imperative if this is to have any impact, provide every detail you have, car registration numbers, home addresses even add a link to www.flickr.com with their photograph. Create a profile on one of the many social networking sites, they can't afford to close them all, you will have maximum impact! The more information you provide the more they will want to close the site, the more they want to close it the more mirror sites will appear with all the same information on them, this will hurt them make no mistake, they won't like the publicity and like we care? No longer can they get away with the ability to hide behind the secret courts!
We have provided the means to "freely express" now you can have your say…
You can make your "comment" anonymously or if you are in any doubt about the traceability of your comment search for "Anonymous Surfing" and use a proxy website or go HERE then enter this Blog again by copy/paste nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.com/ ...then say your piece, your identity remains untouchable ...the world is waiting.
Our day will come.... as will their
thursday
We are ashamed to be British, who would have thought this goes on in our society? We wouldn’t think it, because we don’t know it’s going on!
That’s about to change, we have but one tool at our disposal, a tool even more powerful than social worker’s having their day in court against hapless families, that tool is The Internet a machine so vast it covers the globe in seconds. Maybe, just maybe they have met their match. If you have been on the end of “their justice” it is more than likely you have nothing more to loose, please feel at liberty to tell it like it really is, name all involved, without revealing your identity.
Say NO to gagging orders, how dare they! We know its not in the interests of the child, its in the interests of the perverse judgments and scrappy evidence that could never stand up in a ‘proper’ court furthermore it could cause a public outcry if it ever got out. We’ve had enough of the injustice and the secret courts, this must end and it must end NOW, the outcry is about to begin.
Its not enough to tell your story, naming names is imperative if this is to have any impact, provide every detail you have, car registration numbers, home addresses even add a link to www.flickr.com with their photograph. Create a profile on one of the many social networking sites, they can't afford to close them all, you will have maximum impact! The more information you provide the more they will want to close the site, the more they want to close it the more mirror sites will appear with all the same information on them, this will hurt them make no mistake, they won't like the publicity and like we care? No longer can they get away with the ability to hide behind the secret courts!
We have provided the means to "freely express" now you can have your say…
You can make your "comment" anonymously or if you are in any doubt about the traceability of your comment search for "Anonymous Surfing" and use a proxy website or go HERE then enter this Blog again by copy/paste nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.com/ ...then say your piece, your identity remains untouchable ...the world is waiting.
Our day will come.... as will their
Monday, October 18, 2010
Lawyers to be kept out. A compulsory mediation stage
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8070122/Lawyers-to-be-kept-out-of-divorce-battles.html
Lawyers to be kept out of divorce battles
Lawyers will be kept out of thousands of family dispute cases every year in a shake-up of divorce laws.
By Nick Collins
Published: 7:30AM BST 18 Oct 2010
The number of divorce cases rose 16 per cent to 137,000 last year, with the average childcare case taking more than 12 months to be completed Photo: PHOTOLIBRARY
A government review is to recommend the introduction of a compulsory mediation stage before any financial or custodial dispute is heard in court.
The plan, to be published at the start of next year, will also introduce briefer and simpler hearings for cases that cannot be resolved by mediation.
David Norgrove, who is leading the review, described the "tremendous strain" being put on the current system by the rising number of disputes coming before the courts.
The number of divorce cases rose 16 per cent to 137,000 last year, with the average childcare case taking more than 12 months to be completed.
It is hoped that the new mediation stage will reduce legal aid costs by up to £100 million, while fewer expert witnesses would be required to testify before the courts.
Mr Norgrove told The Times the family justice system costs more than £1.6 billion, but that nine in every ten cases could be dealt with out of court.
He said evidence showed that: "If you can get both parties to learn about mediation, the great majority will go on to use it."
Sir Nicholas Wall, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said the system should be made "less adversarial" as he attacked selfish parents for failing to consider their children's wellbeing.
Under the new system, couples could be forced to take parenting classes as well as being referred to mediators, with court rooms acting as a last resort.
Judges would also be able to advise parents early into legal proceedings what the likely outcome would be, in an effort to force through an agreement and avoid long and expensive cases
Lawyers to be kept out of divorce battles
Lawyers will be kept out of thousands of family dispute cases every year in a shake-up of divorce laws.
By Nick Collins
Published: 7:30AM BST 18 Oct 2010
The number of divorce cases rose 16 per cent to 137,000 last year, with the average childcare case taking more than 12 months to be completed Photo: PHOTOLIBRARY
A government review is to recommend the introduction of a compulsory mediation stage before any financial or custodial dispute is heard in court.
The plan, to be published at the start of next year, will also introduce briefer and simpler hearings for cases that cannot be resolved by mediation.
David Norgrove, who is leading the review, described the "tremendous strain" being put on the current system by the rising number of disputes coming before the courts.
The number of divorce cases rose 16 per cent to 137,000 last year, with the average childcare case taking more than 12 months to be completed.
It is hoped that the new mediation stage will reduce legal aid costs by up to £100 million, while fewer expert witnesses would be required to testify before the courts.
Mr Norgrove told The Times the family justice system costs more than £1.6 billion, but that nine in every ten cases could be dealt with out of court.
He said evidence showed that: "If you can get both parties to learn about mediation, the great majority will go on to use it."
Sir Nicholas Wall, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said the system should be made "less adversarial" as he attacked selfish parents for failing to consider their children's wellbeing.
Under the new system, couples could be forced to take parenting classes as well as being referred to mediators, with court rooms acting as a last resort.
Judges would also be able to advise parents early into legal proceedings what the likely outcome would be, in an effort to force through an agreement and avoid long and expensive cases
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Grandson united with grandmother Cries I'm Free. I'm Home
Yesterday I received a call from Thurrock social services to go and collect my grandson who had been taken away from his home, I cannot tell you of a little boys happiness, he sang all the way back to my home, (I am free) then as we hit the drive way he shouted I am home. We had the most horrendous time at social services of which I will tell you all later, we did not get to my house until nearly 10 o'clock last night, this letter to Cameron ect I had already sent to the social services in Thurrock, so I think maybe they took me seriously, who knows I have for the time my 2 grandkids, we are not sure of the future with all the rules, my god will we have to shout loud and clear at governments, no child should be put through what we went through last night. I will be writing many letters in support of our kids.
Jimmy//James you can use what ever I write here including the letter to Cameron of which I will be doing a follow up letter today. I am one grandmother like so many has fought tooth and nail for my grandkids, but my little 9 year old singing for one hour in the car last night (I AM FREE ) will live with me for ever. We need the words I am free for all kids.
Regards
Maggie
Jimmy//James you can use what ever I write here including the letter to Cameron of which I will be doing a follow up letter today. I am one grandmother like so many has fought tooth and nail for my grandkids, but my little 9 year old singing for one hour in the car last night (I AM FREE ) will live with me for ever. We need the words I am free for all kids.
Regards
Maggie
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Child wrongly removed by social services. Never corrected
Margaret and Tony McMichael had their son removed by social workers within 3 weeks of him being born. They fought the system and won after taking the case to the court of Human Rights in Strasbourg but their child was never returned.
Glasgow social services offered a written apology and £2000.00p was the price of compensation for snatching their child and losing him in the adoption system. They also offered to pay the couples legal costs. Tony said “Not even Two Million Pounds could compensate the terrible damage done to their family by social services in Glasgow.
Margaret had been working with severely disabled children and had excellent references praising her for her loving care but still her child was still snatched from her by social service’s heartless baby snatchers.
Margaret said “This happened a few years ago but the we have never had any contact with son. Our letters and communications have been constantly blocked. We could be grandparents for all we know” but they still have hope that someday they will know the son that was illegally, brutally torn from them.
Why has social services not done the decent thing and let them have contact with their adult son?. They have never made any move to right this wrong despite being ruled against.
Have social services ever learnt the lessons from these blunders. No! according to the vast amount of bad media reports of late. Are their no limits to their power to ruin families when all that is often needed is a little support and guidance to keep children in a stable home environment rather than have them snatched by social workers and two or three burly cops that terrify the resistance out of anybody.
Once inside the system children are told their families do not want them. This demoralises them just to make them easier to handle. Like goods in a business they are farmed out to almost any adopter that comes along to save costs. It is all very well saving costs now but the expense comes later when these emotionally, spiritually deprived kids turn to gangs for the love and stability they have been robbed of when they were young. Gangs that have been reported by the media lately are very much on the increase and will get worse because of the inhuman treatment of our children by social services..
Glasgow social services offered a written apology and £2000.00p was the price of compensation for snatching their child and losing him in the adoption system. They also offered to pay the couples legal costs. Tony said “Not even Two Million Pounds could compensate the terrible damage done to their family by social services in Glasgow.
Margaret had been working with severely disabled children and had excellent references praising her for her loving care but still her child was still snatched from her by social service’s heartless baby snatchers.
Margaret said “This happened a few years ago but the we have never had any contact with son. Our letters and communications have been constantly blocked. We could be grandparents for all we know” but they still have hope that someday they will know the son that was illegally, brutally torn from them.
Why has social services not done the decent thing and let them have contact with their adult son?. They have never made any move to right this wrong despite being ruled against.
Have social services ever learnt the lessons from these blunders. No! according to the vast amount of bad media reports of late. Are their no limits to their power to ruin families when all that is often needed is a little support and guidance to keep children in a stable home environment rather than have them snatched by social workers and two or three burly cops that terrify the resistance out of anybody.
Once inside the system children are told their families do not want them. This demoralises them just to make them easier to handle. Like goods in a business they are farmed out to almost any adopter that comes along to save costs. It is all very well saving costs now but the expense comes later when these emotionally, spiritually deprived kids turn to gangs for the love and stability they have been robbed of when they were young. Gangs that have been reported by the media lately are very much on the increase and will get worse because of the inhuman treatment of our children by social services..
Monday, October 11, 2010
Nick Cleggs reply to the grandparents rights farce,
Department for
Education
Mr James Deuchers Grandparents Apart UK 22 Alness Crescent GLASGOW
G521PJ
Castle View House
East Lane
Runcorn
Cheshire
WA72GJ
Tel: 0870 000 2288 www.education.gov.uk!contactus
.
Our ref: 201010067067 7 October 2010
Dear Mr Deuchers
Thank you for your letter to nick Clegg about grandparent’s rights. As you will appreciate Mr Clegg receives a great deal of correspondence and is unable to reply personally to each one. Your letter has been forwarded to the Department for Education because we have policy responsibility for family law. On this occasion I have been asked to reply and would firstly like to apologise for the delay in replying.
The Coalition Government recognises that grandparents can play an important role in children's lives. Many grandparents are involved with the care of their grandchildren and most children see their grandparents as important figures in their lives.
You may be aware that the family justice system is currently being reviewed. The review panel will examine what changes may be needed to the system as a whole to ensure it best benefits all children and families involved with family proceedings; including the question of access rights for grandparents. The review panel will report in 2011. If any changes are to be made to the family justice system, we will of course make an announcement in due course.
Yours sincerely
Lesley O'Connor
Public Communications Unit
Education
Mr James Deuchers Grandparents Apart UK 22 Alness Crescent GLASGOW
G521PJ
Castle View House
East Lane
Runcorn
Cheshire
WA72GJ
Tel: 0870 000 2288 www.education.gov.uk!contactus
.
Our ref: 201010067067 7 October 2010
Dear Mr Deuchers
Thank you for your letter to nick Clegg about grandparent’s rights. As you will appreciate Mr Clegg receives a great deal of correspondence and is unable to reply personally to each one. Your letter has been forwarded to the Department for Education because we have policy responsibility for family law. On this occasion I have been asked to reply and would firstly like to apologise for the delay in replying.
The Coalition Government recognises that grandparents can play an important role in children's lives. Many grandparents are involved with the care of their grandchildren and most children see their grandparents as important figures in their lives.
You may be aware that the family justice system is currently being reviewed. The review panel will examine what changes may be needed to the system as a whole to ensure it best benefits all children and families involved with family proceedings; including the question of access rights for grandparents. The review panel will report in 2011. If any changes are to be made to the family justice system, we will of course make an announcement in due course.
Yours sincerely
Lesley O'Connor
Public Communications Unit
Friday, October 8, 2010
Call Kaye. BBC Radio Scotland
Dear Kaye,
I was on your programme concerning grandparent’s rights of contact with their grandchildren. You finished up by saying Jimmy says grandparents don’t have rights, the lawyer says they have and you looked very puzzled.
This also puzzles grandparents who cling to any hope of contact and are very vulnerable to lawyers telling them they have rights then spend a fortune until their money runs out.
Now here is the proof straight from the government’s law division that grandparents have no automatic rights and need to pursue any contact through the courts.
Letter from Scottish government Law Division.
Quote As stated in previous correspondence the Scottish Government recognises the valuable contribution that grandparents can make to a child's life following parental separation. Grandparents do not have automatic rights to contact with their grandchildren; however they can obtain contact by being awarded an order from the court. These policy decisions were made after detailed and thorough consultation, unfortunately it would not be in the best interests of every child to have automatic contact with their grandparents. The child's welfare is paramount in these situations and any decisions made by the court will be with this principle in mind. unquote
We never recommend lawyers as we have had bad experiences with clients coming back and saying “you recommended them”. We only say make sure you engage a family trained lawyer. We also advise anyone engaging a lawyer to get second opinions on whether they have a good enough chance before spending all their hard earned savings.
I was on your programme concerning grandparent’s rights of contact with their grandchildren. You finished up by saying Jimmy says grandparents don’t have rights, the lawyer says they have and you looked very puzzled.
This also puzzles grandparents who cling to any hope of contact and are very vulnerable to lawyers telling them they have rights then spend a fortune until their money runs out.
Now here is the proof straight from the government’s law division that grandparents have no automatic rights and need to pursue any contact through the courts.
Letter from Scottish government Law Division.
Quote As stated in previous correspondence the Scottish Government recognises the valuable contribution that grandparents can make to a child's life following parental separation. Grandparents do not have automatic rights to contact with their grandchildren; however they can obtain contact by being awarded an order from the court. These policy decisions were made after detailed and thorough consultation, unfortunately it would not be in the best interests of every child to have automatic contact with their grandparents. The child's welfare is paramount in these situations and any decisions made by the court will be with this principle in mind. unquote
We never recommend lawyers as we have had bad experiences with clients coming back and saying “you recommended them”. We only say make sure you engage a family trained lawyer. We also advise anyone engaging a lawyer to get second opinions on whether they have a good enough chance before spending all their hard earned savings.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Too many feuding parents 'rely' on court, says minister
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9065000/9065167.stm
There are three enemies against family unity which is what a child needs to grow up stable and happy. They are:-
1, The government who keep families apart by gender bias and not accepting grandparents as relevent in a child's life
2, a, Socials servicves, who carry out the governments actions by regarding the woman as priority over the father even if he has done no wrong. B, Ignoring grandparents and telling them you are irelevent and we don't need to speak to you.
3, Woman's aid. their policy for woman excludes the best intersts of children when they tutor mothers to alienate the paternal side of a child's family when there is no reasons to do so proves they are self centred.
If the were really working in the child's best interest they would work towards family unity which will encourage mediation.
There are three enemies against family unity which is what a child needs to grow up stable and happy. They are:-
1, The government who keep families apart by gender bias and not accepting grandparents as relevent in a child's life
2, a, Socials servicves, who carry out the governments actions by regarding the woman as priority over the father even if he has done no wrong. B, Ignoring grandparents and telling them you are irelevent and we don't need to speak to you.
3, Woman's aid. their policy for woman excludes the best intersts of children when they tutor mothers to alienate the paternal side of a child's family when there is no reasons to do so proves they are self centred.
If the were really working in the child's best interest they would work towards family unity which will encourage mediation.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Grandparents/Grandchildren. The Authorities Hypocrissy
Press release
The head of Glasgow social services has pointed out that the contents of the Charter for Grandchildren are already acknowledged in family law. They may well be but they are not focussed or prominent enough to be adhered to by professionals who deal in the welfare of children. It was pointed out to the Justice Minister that there were deficiencies in the way children were being treated. The government heeded the evidence and created the Charter for Grandchildren, by the government’s actions and expense in creating the Charter for Grandchildren is proof enough that there was a need for such a document for professionals to focus on the best interests of our children instead of mouthing the words to suit their own agenda..
Social services have chosen to ignore the guidance of the charter and children are losing out on stability and love their grandparents can give. Now for the sake of our children the charter must be made mandatory for professionals.
It is well published and recognised social services policies are not what is best for children but what is cheapest and quickest for them. This is false economy for the future when children that are not treated properly turn out to be non-achievers disruptive citizens and turn to gangs and crime which is terrifying our older people making them afraid to open their doors or go out at night. The cost of increased crime and policing in an attempt to keep our streets safe far exceeds the cost of doing right by children in the first place.
A king’s ransom is spent on legal aid, court time and lawyers, also children’s services, social services to cope with the farce of family law. The government is hypocritical in saying one thing and yet their policies are doing the other. The savings that can be made are vast if they would only try bringing families together.
The authorities are splitting families by not recognising grandparents as relevant persons and social services carry out the enforcement of their ruling. Why is the they doing this when they tell us that grandparents are important in children’s lives? Grandparents don’t get a chance to be important when social services refuse to speak or acknowledge them regarding their children.
The government funds an organisation whose policies are focussed only on themselves and totally in opposition to family unity which is not in the best interests of children. Woman’s Aid is this organisations name and we tried to liaise with them about a Charter for Women for good practise but they have ignored us.
The authorities must sort this out saying one thing and doing the opposite if they want to ‘Get it right for every Child’
Ends
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
The head of Glasgow social services has pointed out that the contents of the Charter for Grandchildren are already acknowledged in family law. They may well be but they are not focussed or prominent enough to be adhered to by professionals who deal in the welfare of children. It was pointed out to the Justice Minister that there were deficiencies in the way children were being treated. The government heeded the evidence and created the Charter for Grandchildren, by the government’s actions and expense in creating the Charter for Grandchildren is proof enough that there was a need for such a document for professionals to focus on the best interests of our children instead of mouthing the words to suit their own agenda..
Social services have chosen to ignore the guidance of the charter and children are losing out on stability and love their grandparents can give. Now for the sake of our children the charter must be made mandatory for professionals.
It is well published and recognised social services policies are not what is best for children but what is cheapest and quickest for them. This is false economy for the future when children that are not treated properly turn out to be non-achievers disruptive citizens and turn to gangs and crime which is terrifying our older people making them afraid to open their doors or go out at night. The cost of increased crime and policing in an attempt to keep our streets safe far exceeds the cost of doing right by children in the first place.
A king’s ransom is spent on legal aid, court time and lawyers, also children’s services, social services to cope with the farce of family law. The government is hypocritical in saying one thing and yet their policies are doing the other. The savings that can be made are vast if they would only try bringing families together.
The authorities are splitting families by not recognising grandparents as relevant persons and social services carry out the enforcement of their ruling. Why is the they doing this when they tell us that grandparents are important in children’s lives? Grandparents don’t get a chance to be important when social services refuse to speak or acknowledge them regarding their children.
The government funds an organisation whose policies are focussed only on themselves and totally in opposition to family unity which is not in the best interests of children. Woman’s Aid is this organisations name and we tried to liaise with them about a Charter for Women for good practise but they have ignored us.
The authorities must sort this out saying one thing and doing the opposite if they want to ‘Get it right for every Child’
Ends
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Grandparents Poem. Should we adopt this poem?
Grandparents’ Poem- Charlie Mathis
As the sun sets in Owasso,
the geese fly overhead,
quacking for our arrival.
Grandpa G is lying back
in his easy chair.
Grandma is getting ready
for the ten o'clock news.
The nurses are coming
down the hall.
They are coming in, saying,
"How are you doing, G?"
And they say,
"Do you want orange juice or water?"
He says, "Orange juice."
We are talking to Grandma.
She is talking on the phone
to one of my dad's brothers.
The ten o'clock news comes on.
My dad is making the bed.
Grandpa G is talking about the news.
We give them kisses and hugs
and tell them, "Good Night!"
We close our eyes and dream
Of the very next day.
As the sun sets in Owasso,
the geese fly overhead,
quacking for our arrival.
Grandpa G is lying back
in his easy chair.
Grandma is getting ready
for the ten o'clock news.
The nurses are coming
down the hall.
They are coming in, saying,
"How are you doing, G?"
And they say,
"Do you want orange juice or water?"
He says, "Orange juice."
We are talking to Grandma.
She is talking on the phone
to one of my dad's brothers.
The ten o'clock news comes on.
My dad is making the bed.
Grandpa G is talking about the news.
We give them kisses and hugs
and tell them, "Good Night!"
We close our eyes and dream
Of the very next day.
Babysitter grandparents urged to strike
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Babysitter+grandparents+urged+strike/3585148/story.html
Babysitter grandparents urged to strike
By Bruno Waterfield, The Daily Telegraph September 27, 2010 9:02 AM Be the first to post a comment
Spain's "babysitter" grandparents have been called on to take part in a general strike against budget cuts.
Spanish grandparents, who give a significant, unpaid boost to Spain's economy by providing free childcare for their grandchildren, have been called on to join demonstrations on Wednesday.
Manuel Pastrana, the Andalusian leader of the UGT general workers' trade union, the country's biggest, said: "We want grandparents to strike to prove they are a key part of the way this country functions."
The Spanish general strike, which is expected to bring millions on to the streets, follows massive protests in France last week.
Half of all Spanish grandparents look after their grandchildren every day and one in eight provides unpaid childcare for more than nine hours a day.
"It is a growing problem because grandparents are cheaper than childminders and they are an easy option when the economy is as bad as it is now," said Dr Jaime Rodri-guez, of Spain's Society of Gerontology.
It is estimated that Britain's 14?million-strong army of grandfathers and grandmothers provides childcare worth almost pounds 4?billion to the economy every year.
The call to strike in Spain is partly a response to the European Commission tabling new measures giving it control of austerity programs, thus taking cuts out of the hands of elected politicians, who it believes are too easily swayed by popular pressure.
In order to stop governments caving in to voters, the EU plans would require national treasuries to deposit billions of euros in Brussels.
The cash would be forfeited if the government failed to convince the EU it was carrying out the austerity measures required to reduce public spending to levels set in Brussels."What we want is a system that's more rules-based and has less room for political discretion," said a Commission spokesman.
On Friday, the Spanish government approved an austerity budget that included a 7.7 per cent spending cuts, in a bid to meet EU requirements that it cut its annual budget deficit from more than 11 per cent of GDP to six per cent next year.
Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Babysitter+grandparents+urged+strike/3585148/story.html#ixzz10ks86kyd
Babysitter grandparents urged to strike
By Bruno Waterfield, The Daily Telegraph September 27, 2010 9:02 AM Be the first to post a comment
Spain's "babysitter" grandparents have been called on to take part in a general strike against budget cuts.
Spanish grandparents, who give a significant, unpaid boost to Spain's economy by providing free childcare for their grandchildren, have been called on to join demonstrations on Wednesday.
Manuel Pastrana, the Andalusian leader of the UGT general workers' trade union, the country's biggest, said: "We want grandparents to strike to prove they are a key part of the way this country functions."
The Spanish general strike, which is expected to bring millions on to the streets, follows massive protests in France last week.
Half of all Spanish grandparents look after their grandchildren every day and one in eight provides unpaid childcare for more than nine hours a day.
"It is a growing problem because grandparents are cheaper than childminders and they are an easy option when the economy is as bad as it is now," said Dr Jaime Rodri-guez, of Spain's Society of Gerontology.
It is estimated that Britain's 14?million-strong army of grandfathers and grandmothers provides childcare worth almost pounds 4?billion to the economy every year.
The call to strike in Spain is partly a response to the European Commission tabling new measures giving it control of austerity programs, thus taking cuts out of the hands of elected politicians, who it believes are too easily swayed by popular pressure.
In order to stop governments caving in to voters, the EU plans would require national treasuries to deposit billions of euros in Brussels.
The cash would be forfeited if the government failed to convince the EU it was carrying out the austerity measures required to reduce public spending to levels set in Brussels."What we want is a system that's more rules-based and has less room for political discretion," said a Commission spokesman.
On Friday, the Spanish government approved an austerity budget that included a 7.7 per cent spending cuts, in a bid to meet EU requirements that it cut its annual budget deficit from more than 11 per cent of GDP to six per cent next year.
Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Babysitter+grandparents+urged+strike/3585148/story.html#ixzz10ks86kyd
Friday, October 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)