Six years ago tomorrow ST Andrews Day, Brian McNair& Dave Pike called the the Scottish Parliament with there Fathers for Justice Banner Highlighting The Injustice in our Family Courts with the exclusion of Fathers Grandparents and extended Family from the children's lives, Creating World Wide Interest , Brian went on to Submit Evidence with others to the Justice 1 Committee, Raising Amendments through his MSP Sylvia Jackson , Brian was asked to drop the amendments with the Promise of Compliance Officers from the then Scottish Executive under the Labour Government, False Promises Indeed. Brian Goes on to say how can you ever trust Politicians who make false Promises the effects of going to court and getting a Court order thats not worth the paper its writen on has a Devestating effect on Families , and is Clearly not in the Best interest of the Children, These Court Orders are made in the best Interest of Children after long and drawn litigation with Court reporters, Curators acting for the Children PhycoligistsAnd Solicitors Corting tens of thosands of pounds to the tax payer, and to the fathers and Grandparents that do not get Legal Aided, Really what is the pouint of having a Justice System where the Sheriffs and Judges give out Court Orders and do not uphold them this is a National Disgrace, The Family Law Bill was nothing more than a Public Relations Exercise with non Ledgitive Ledgislation to make the Covernmend look as though they were Addressing the problem, Well I can tell you six years on Nothing has Changed it has actualy got worse, On this Great day of Celibration St Andrews Day I Say shame on ther governments of Scotland For fialing Children an Families, Your's B McNair Spell checker not working, can you correc
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Shared Parenting Orders – New Bill
23 NOVEMBER 2010 35 VIEWS NO COMMENTS
In July 2010, Brian Binley MP for Northampton South tabled a Private Member’s Bill which calls for the making of shared parenting orders to enhance the welfare of a child. The Bill is due it’s second reading next year. We urge you to ask your MP to support it.
The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the making of shared parenting orders and to create a legal presumption that such orders enhance the welfare of the child unless certain exceptions apply and for connected purposes.
Brian said: “Shared parenting legislation is vitally important for all involved, especially the children.”
“Very often Court Orders are made without the knowledge of the importance of a father’s involvement and my bill will make sure that neither parent is shut out from a child’s life when sadly a relationship breaks down.”
“I don’t need to underline the importance of both parents in a child’s life. A significant proportion of the social problems in today’s society are a result of when a child doesn’t have the love and support of both parents.”
“I hope the Bill will go some way to help this which can only be good for society.”
The Bill is supported by 10 other MP’s and includes: Dr Therese Coffey, Douglas Carswell, Phillip Hollobone, Christopher Chope, Peter Bone, Mark Reckless, Caroline Dineage, Mark Pritchard, Harriett Baldwin and David Nuttall.
Here is the full text of the Bill:
SHARED PARENTING BILL
A Bill to provide for the making of shared parenting orders under the Children Act 1989 and to create a presumption that such orders enhance the welfare of the child unless certain exceptions apply; amend the Children Act in relation to shared parenting orders; and for connected purposes.
1. Purpose of the Bill
(1) The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that, wherever possible, children benefit from the full involvement of both parents in their upbringing.
(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to conflict with or undermine in any way the paramountcy of the welfare of the child, as established under section 1 of the Children Act.
2. Shared parenting orders
(1) Section 8 of the Children Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 8(1), after the words “In this Act—”, the following words are inserted:-
“ “a shared parenting order” means an order settling that both parents have a full involvement in the upbringing of a child, particularly in respect of major long-term issues, and requiring that the child must spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents;”.
(3) After section 8(2) the following subsection is inserted:-
“(2A) When making a section 8 order, and subject to the considerations set out in sections 1(3) and 8A, the court must apply a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for both of the child’s parents to have a full involvement in the upbringing of the child.”.
(4) Before section 9(1) the following subsections are inserted:-
“(A1) Where a shared parenting order is in force in relation to a child, the court may not make another section 8 order in relation to that child.
(B1) A shared parenting order may only be made in relation to a child where no other section 8 order is in force in relation to that child, or where those orders are discharged before the shared parenting order comes into force.”.
(5) The Schedule makes consequential amendments to the Children Act relating to shared parenting orders and hereby has effect.
3. Welfare of the child: definition
(1) The Children Act is amended as follows.
(2) After section 8 the following section is inserted:
“8A Shared parenting orders: additional factors relating to the best interests of the child
(1) In considering what is in the best interests of the child under section 8(2A), the court shall have regard to the fact that the child’s welfare is enhanced by:-
(a) ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives;
(b) protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or domestic violence;
(c) ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and
(d) ensuring that both parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2) The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is demonstrated that it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests):-
(a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together;
(b) children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (including grandparents as well as other relatives);
(c) parents should jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children;
(d) each parent should be involved in the child’s daily routine and occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and
(e) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.
4. Shared parenting: time spent with both parents
(1) After section 11 of the Children Act the following section is inserted.
“11AA (1) When making a shared parenting order, the court must apply a presumption that the child should spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents.
(2) When applying the presumption under subsection (1) the court must consider:
(a) the factors set out in section 1(3); and
(b) whether it would be reasonably practicable for the child to spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents.
(3) In determining, for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), whether it is reasonably practicable for a child to spend a substantial and significant time with each of his parents, the court must have regard to:
(a) how far apart the parents live from each other;
(b) the parents’ current and future capacity to ensure that the child spends a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents; and
(c) such other matters as the court considers relevant.
(4) Where the court, in making a shared parenting order, decides not to provide for the child to spend a substantial and significant amount of time with both parents, it must:
(a) provide for the child to spend as much time as is practicable with both parents, given the considerations set out in subsection (2); and
(b) have regard to the desirability of the child spending at least 25 per cent of his time, in any one calendar year, with each of his parents.
5. Major long-term issues
(1) The Children Act is amended as follows.
(2) After section 105(1), there is inserted:-
“(1A) In this Act, “major long-term issues” means issues about the care, welfare and development of the child of a long-term nature and includes issues of that nature about:
(a) the child’s education (both current and future);
(b) the child’s religious and cultural upbringing;
(c) the child’s health; and
(d) changes to the child’s living arrangements that make it significantly more difficult for the child to spend time with a parent.
A decision by a parent of a child to form a relationship with a new partner is not, of itself, a major long-term issue, within the meaning of this section, in relation to the child.”.
6. Interpretation
In this Act—
“Children Act” means the Children Act 1989 (c. 41);
“major long-term issues” has the meaning given in section 5; and
“shared parenting” is interpreted in accordance with section 2(2).
7. Expenses
There shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament–
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of this Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
8. Extent, short title and commencement
(1) This Act may be cited as the Shared Parenting Act 2010.
(2) This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3) This Act extends to England and Wales only.
Schedule
1. The Children Act is amended as follows.
2. In section 9(5)(a), after the words “making a” the words “shared parenting,” are inserted.
3. In section 10:
In subsection (4)(b), after the words “favour a” the words “shared parenting or” are inserted.
In subsection (5), after the words “apply for a” the words “shared parenting” are inserted.
In subsection (5)(c)(i), after the words “where a” the words “shared parenting or”
4. In section 11(5):
after the word “Where” the words “a shared parenting order has been made with respect to a child, or”
after the words “the residence” the words “shared parenting or” are inserted.
5. In section 13:
In subsection (1), after the words “Where a” the words “shared parenting or”.
In subsection (2), at the end insert the words “, or, where a shared parenting order has been made, by one of the parents”.
In subsection (3), after the words “making a” the words “shared parenting or”
Monday, November 29, 2010
New powers help victims of domestic violence
More power for Woman's Aid
Corrupt UK Coalition Government Home Office, Women's Minister Theresa May MP, will pay Police £28 Million £'s to Prosecute more innocent non violent male Partners.
SORRY BOYS. The same old Corrupt UK Government matriarchal feminism political rhetoric, aimed at protecting the UK's women aids movement, UK & EU leaders must protect this regime at all cost. Unfortunately this means that more innocent men's domestic family relationships are DOOMED to fail.
Yes that means more innocent Husbands and Fathers will be labelled as Domestic Abusers, and will be falsely accused by their lying wife' or girlfriends etc, and now will be targeted by the Police and falsely criminally labelled, & criminally prosecuted as a Violent Domestic Criminal Thugs, with a lifetime criminal record.
Don't worry innocent Men etc, this is nothing new, since 2005 the Domestic Violence Act came into UK law, just talking to your partner, is already a CRIME, as set out this disgusting immoral UK Law, just talking to your love one, is NOW classed as domestic violence.
This evil law has been implemented by the executive regime to fuel many different facets of its regime' political business hierarchy, the police are used by the UK Crown & its Corrupt UK/Govt Home Office, as their domestic nurse ares wipes, the police will be used be to fuel more police business & to spread the corrupt feminism policy throughout the UK, by its despotic tyrannical Govt. administration, will 100% fuel more Corrupt UK Courts Judiciary litigation business in both Criminal & Civil Family Law Courts divisions etc
How about that for reducing Coalition Govt. austerity measure, by squandering a further £28Million £'s of UK Taxpayers Money.
In a paper outlining the Government's plans to tackle domestic violence, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, will also announce plans today to allocate more than £28 million for specialist services to tackle violence against women and girls until 2015
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/new-powers-help-victims-of-domestic-violence
Violent partners will be banned from their homes and their victims given support to escape abuse under new government proposals.
The police will be able to issue domestic violence protection orders, known as 'Go' orders, to bar the perpetrators of domestic violence from their homes for up to a fortnight, giving their victims breathing space to consider their options.
Currently, victims can only be protected immediately if the perpetrator is charged and bail conditions set, or if a civil injunction is sought by the victim. This means that in many cases, the only option for victims is to escape to temporary accommodation. The 'Go' orders will allow police to give evidence on the victim's behalf, removing the perpetrator from the home and preventing contact with the victim where they are concerned about the on-going risk of violence.
Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: "It is not right that victims of domestic violence, who have already suffered so much, are forced out of their home. It is both safer and fairer to remove the abuser.
"Go orders will be another valuable tool to help protect victims, and tackle perpetrators of domestic violence."
The new orders have the support of Refuge, a national charity for women and children experiencing domestic violence. Chief Executive, Sandra Horley said: "Protecting abused women and children is at the heart of what Refuge does. These new orders will protect women from further risk of domestic violence if they are implemented effectively."
These new powers will complement restraining orders which came into force on 30 September, to help protect victims of harassment (including domestic abuse), where an offender has been prosecuted for any criminal offence, not just harassment offences.
Criminal courts will also have greater freedom to grant restraining orders when abusers appear before them, giving victims immediate protection and sparing them the ordeal of starting a separate civil action.
New legislation will be needed to implement the orders. They will be piloted in two police force areas to test the impact of the orders
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Another Scottish Government Botch up.
Members’ quit threat over Children’s Panel reforms.
(Was it only the government funded groups that were invited to give them the answers they want? It appears groups like Grandparents Apart
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart
22 Alness crescent
0141 882 5658
Children on the at risk register
From
Children on the Scottish at risk register rises to 3,600 that was in 2009 what are the figures now. Has it improved any?
Scottish Labour leader Ian Gray said the figures underlined the need for an urgent re-examination of child protection.
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart
22 Alness crescent
0141 882 5658
Forced adoptions get no sympathy from the ministry
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8165143/Forced-adoptions-get-no-sympathy-from-the-ministry.html?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4cf17664844a5786,0
While loving families are torn apart, Whitehall
Last week I listened for an hour to a sobbing mother describing how she recently lost the six-year-old daughter who is the centre of her life. Her fatal mistake was to ask social workers for advice when she was being troubled by "harassment" from the child's father, from whom she parted some years ago. Within days, although it was never suggested that she had harmed her daughter in any way, she found herself facing a "case conference" of 20 people at the local council offices, the conclusion of which was that her child must be placed in foster care.
The solicitor she was given by the social workers refused to oppose the care order. At a "contact" session, when she and her bewildered daughter emotionally expressed their love for each other, the interview was halted. She has not been allowed to see her child again.
Having followed dozens of such cases in recent months, which suggest that something has gone horribly wrong with our child protection system, I was recently invited for an off-the-record ministerial discussion about what I have been reporting. But far from recognising that anything might be astray, the official line, it seems, is that the horrifying cases I have covered represent only an untypical minority of the total – "less than 10 per cent". In general, the system is working fine.
RELATED ARTICLES
· Three years ago, David Cameron knew just what to do about Learco Chindamo
This line seems to be confirmed by the latest guidance issued to local authorities by the Children's Minister, Tim Loughton, who says that too many councils are failing to ensure that enough children are being adopted, and that the backsliders must speed up their flow of adoptions. No question as to whether social workers might be snatching too many of the wrong children in the first place – or why the courts seem so eager to support them that, of around 8,000 applications made each year for care orders, only one in 400 is refused.
I shall give just one disturbing instance of the latest developments in a case I have been following for months. Like many others, this came to me through the Forced Adoption website, run by former councillor Ian Josephs. It involves a married couple whose five older children were seized earlier this year, subsequent to which their latest baby was torn from its mother's arms only hours after it was born.
The bizarre story originally stated by the social workers to justify their ruthless intervention in this family's life seems to have collapsed. At a recent court hearing, I am told, the judge seemed disposed to reunite the family as soon as possible. The baby was returned to her parents later that day. But the council asked for 21 days' stay of execution before returning the five older children, three of whom the parents had not been allowed to see for weeks. The judge apparently agreed but insisted that an independent social worker should interview the children.
The independent social worker eventually managed to interview four of the children, apparently reporting that they all wished to be allowed to go home to their parents. But the court refused to give the parents a copy of the judge's ruling, and on Friday they were summoned back to hear from him that he had now seemingly changed his mind and that the children did not wish to come home after all. According to the parents, they were not allowed to question the evidence on which he based his new ruling, although they were told they could appeal.
What on earth is going on here? Even from the little I am permitted to report of this case, it seems evident that something seriously odd is afoot.
But this is merely one of far too many cases where families are being heartlessly torn apart, often without the parents even being allowed to question the evidence or to speak for themselves. To hear such horror stories being dismissed as representing "less than 10 per cent" of all the cases where children are seized is simply not good enough. Each is shocking enough in its own right. But when every week brings news of a dozen more, this only confirms that we indeed have a national scandal on our hands
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Top judge says mothers should have children taken away if they don't let fathers see them
Saturday 27th November 2010
Top judge says mothers should have children taken away if they don't let fathers see them
By Daily Mail Reporter
Mr Justice Coleridge: Called for 'three strikes and you're out' rule
Mothers who refuse to let separated fathers see their children should have them taken away, a senior family court judge said yesterday.
The children should be handed over to the full time care of the father if the mother persistently defies court orders, Mr Justice Coleridge said.
He called for a ‘three strikes and you’re out rule’ by which children would be taken away if mothers ignored three court orders.
The judge said that family courts are losing their authority because so many people take no notice of their judgments.
Around 5,000 new cases a year come before the family courts in which parents – almost always mothers – defy orders to let the other parent have contact.
Judges are extremely reluctant to jail such mothers because of the damaging effects on the children, so many continue to get away with it.
Mr Justice Coleridge, 61, said: ‘If I were to call it three strikes and you’re out it sounds insensitive but something like it perhaps should be the norm.’
He added that occasionally it might be necessary to send a mother to jail.
The Coalition:
our programme for government
Families and children
Gary Westcar (a Divorced Non-resident Parent/Father) says: 28 May 2010 at 7:38 pm
Re “former Labour/Gov 100%Encouraged Matriarchal &Family Court, CHILD ABDUCTION”
“Your Coalition Programme of Government, section 14. Families And Children, your Government review of Family Law, you MUST immediately STOP CORRUPT FAMILY COURTS JUDICIARY from ignoring Non-Resident Parent/Fathers existing s8 Children Act 1989 Consent Contact ORDERS. Divorced non-resident Parent/father Gary Westcar two W(Children) have been illegally ABDUCTED by my xwife being 100% aided by Corrupt RCJ Judiciary & CAFCASS, both these Public bodies100% ignored W(Children)+Father & Paternal Grandparents SUPERIOR RCJ Court of Appeal DIRECT CONTACT (Consent) ORDER, Ordered by Three Lords Justices, for both father=Gary Westcar +P/Grandparents, do have DIRECT CONTACT with W(Children)” on such dates and at such times as shall be agreed between W(Children) Father & Mother,
Court of Appeal 13thSept2005, case B4/2005/0294 in the matter of Children Act 1989 (Private Law) in the matter of W(Children):
Ordered by LJJ Ward, LJJ Rix & LJJ Moore-Bick.
FACT: the RCJ has REFUSED to enforce my W(Children)&Father &P/Grandparents Direct Contact (Consent) Order, Corrupt RCJ Judiciary+Cafcass enabled xwife to ABDUCT my 2 Westcar Children! Abducted 14thFeb2007″. W(Children) devoted Father/Gary Westcar has been told by his Conservative MP Charles Hendry said that nothing can be done until the Tories are in Government!!!
“What is this Tory/Lib-dem Coalition Government going to do about these INJUSTICES
Government Funded (Yes) Organisations.
WE NEED CHANGES.
Government Funded Organisations.
Grandparents are very important in children’s lives.
They refuse to acknowledge grandparents by law as relevant persons in their grandchildren’s lives, and also refuse to make mandatory the Charter for Grandchildren. This was created by a Scottish government for families and professionals to look more closely at the role grandparents can play in children’s lives.
The government’s actions are sending a message to the general public that grandparents do not matter and families are adopting that attitude rather than attempt to resolve family disputes by mediation. This results in enormous costs for legal aid and court appearances that clog up the court system.. Why are 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.
…………………………..
They acknowledge grandparents. This implies that the 1000,s of grandparent’s that have contacted us and other organisations are being untruthful.
Ignore grandparents if they have anything to say about how their grandchildren are being treated and tell them “we don’t need to speak to you” which, as we all know, has not been in the best interests of quite a few children of late?
The removal of children and telling them their grandparents do not want to see them demoralises children and makes them bitter and unmanageable. Is it a wonder that grandparents are unwilling to report any neglect or abuse because they are afraid they will be the first to lose any contact? They try to handle it themselves and end up being alienated from the family that is in badly need of help. All meetings with SS should be recorded for accuracy in getting it right for every child.
………………………
Their focus is on the violence towards women but still say grandparents are important in a child’s live. How could they say otherwise about their own mum and dad? But!
Their actions at meetings in tutoring mothers how to avoid contact with the paternal side of the family is depriving children of their father and paternal grandparents even when they have done no wrong. Parental Alienation is now regarded as a mental illness and is utilised by women who have a total hate of men in order to brainwash our children for their own distorted selfish means.
Conclusion:-
The government funds an organisation whose are totally focussed only on there own hate filled policies and totally in opposition to family unity which is not in the best interests of children. We tried to liaise with them about a Charter for Women for good practise but they have ignored all our attempts at a compromise even for the sake of their own children.
Bernardo's using children to boost funds
.Child care orders 'take over a year"
VULNERABLE children are having to wait more than a year before being taken into care, Barnardo's says. They are forced to remain in potentially abusive homes because of 'unnecessary delays ~ caused by a string of extra expert assessments and a lack of credence given to social workers, said Martin Narey the charity’s executive. Unresolved cases soared by 50 per cent last year to 12,994, claimed Barnardo's, which called for a 30 week limit on proceedings. A panel of experts leading a review of the system 'shares Barnardo's concerns'.
It's the panel of so called experts that we are worried about.
Who’e obvious best interests is this?. Bernardo’s are short of cash and on a fund raising drive.
High Court judge warns parents not to describe ex-partners as 'ogres'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8014360/High-Court-judge-warns-parents-not-to-describe-ex-partners-as-ogres.html
High Court judge warns parents not to describe ex-partners as 'ogres'
Parents who separate must not describe their estranged partners as “ogres” to their children, one of Britain
7:00AM BST 21 Sep 2010
Sir Nicholas Wall, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, said separating couples are often “fighting the battles” of their relationship again but using their children as “both the battlefield and the ammunition”.
He claimed there is “nothing worse” for children to hear their separated mothers and fathers calling each other worthless while arguing over access, pointing out that children usually feel loyalty towards both parents.
Sir Nicholas – famous for quoting Philip Larkin’s poem on the damage caused by parents in a judgement – said they should think beyond their next meeting with their children and bear in mind what their relationship with them will be like when they grow up.
He made his comments on Sunday in a speech to Families Need Fathers, a charity that supports divorced and separated parents, which welcomed it as an “important contribution” to the debate over care for children in broken homes.
In his speech, Sir Nicholas said that he wanted the family justice system to become “less adversarial” although he admitted this would be difficult, particularly as separating parents “rarely behave reasonably”.
He said Parliament, rather than judges, must decide if shared parenting orders – where children live with each parent at different times – are to become the norm instead of living with one parent and having regular contact with the other.
But Sir Nicholas made it clear that he believed it is important for both parents to carry on playing equally important roles in their children’s lives.
“In the same way as it takes two human beings to create a child, and since most children learn their attitudes about the world in general and the opposite sex in particular from their parents, the best upbringing for most children is in a household where there are two loving parents,” he said.
“The separated parent’s role in the lives of his or her children retains the same degree of importance as when the parents were living together, even if the opportunities to manifest the qualities which an absent parent can bring to his children may be limited.”
He described separation as a “serious failure of parenting” but went on: “Mutual recrimination post separation rarely achieves anything. What matters is the enduring relationships.
Sir Nicholas also said: “There is nothing worse, for most children, than for their parents to denigrate each other. If a child’s mother makes it clear to the child that his or her father is worthless – and vice versa – the child’s sense of self-worth can be irredeemably damaged. Parents simply do not realise the damage they do to their children by the battles they wage over them.
“This does not mean, of course, to say that you should not seek contact with or the residence / shared residence of your children. But if you do, remember that what ultimately matters is how your child turns out as an adult, and your long-term relationship with that child in adulthood.
“A residential parent who obstructs contact is, in my experience, storing up substantial problems for him or herself when the child becomes an adult, seeks out the residential parent and realises that she or she is not the ogre which has been described.”
Last year while ruling on a residence order for a nine year-old boy whose parents were divorcing, Sir Nicholas quoted Larkin’s 1971 poem This Be The Verse, saying: "They ---- you up, your mum and dad. They may not mean to, but they do.”
Bernardo's looking for business to the tune of £400 PW.
BABIES born to 'bad' parents should be removed from their families as soon as possible to stop them being damaged beyond repair, the boss of Barnardo's ~Jl,jd yesterday.
Martin Narey said the time had come to accept some inadequate parents and families 'can't be fixed'.
He added: 'It sounds terrible but I think we try too hard with birth parents.'
Mr Narey was speaking in the wake of last week's chilling court case of two young
Mr Narey, chief executive of the children's charity, admitted his views were likely to'OO seen as 'illiberal heresy' .
However, he added: 'We can't keep trying to fix families that are completely broken. If we really cared about the interests of the child, we would take children away as babies and put them into permanent adoptive families, where we know they will have the best possible outcome.'
Children's secretary Ed Balls said removing children from. their parents at birth should not be an instinctive first resort. 'The right thing to do is to say, "Can we sort out the problems in that family?'" he added.
Mr Balls said about 2,000 families were being assessed to try to try to help tackle problems with alcohol, drugs, domestic abuse and truanting. And he said children were now being removed from inadequate parents earlier within the first year, rather than after three or four years, as in the past - if the action did not appear to be working.
Are the nspcc failing our children?
Are the nspcc failing our children?
The British Public are inundated with graphic adverts of putting a ‘Full Stop’ to child abuse but the NSPCC like other agencies only learn of child abuse “after” it has taken place and a child lies in hospital with broken ribs or has fallen down the stairs or killed. Their disturbing advert says “this is child abuse”.” and then say they need more money. We say ‘rubbish’ grandparents with access can spot child abuse a mile off and it doesn’t cost a penny.
The horror of today’s news (quote) Three children killed by abuse in
You could say the NSPCC are the charitable branch of social services. In fact every telephone call to the NSPCC helpline is recorded and in cases they deem as having the potential of “Abuse” are passed on to Social Services immediately. It is included in the small print of their “Privacy” facts published on their web-site.
The only people that have the best chance to recognise and put a “FULL STOP” to child abuse are ‘Grandparents’.
They are the people with the insight into their own family’s nature and capabilities. They would spot neglect signs quicker than any Social Service Department or organisation due to their special relationship with their Grandchildren.
A grandparent does not report abuse to social services lightly. Their fear is that social services will remove the kids altogether and statistics prove it is all too often the grandparents that are refused contact with them. This type of situation only ensures more suffering by the children due to complete separation from all family members, leaving the child unknowing whether they have caused this upset and separation.
FACT - It is children’s lives and future’s that are at stake here. In some cases our own.
FAMILY COURTS NEED TO REASSERT THEIR AUTHORITY
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/Coleridge26112010-8965
FAMILY COURTS NEED TO REASSERT THEIR AUTHORITY, SAYS MR JUSTICE COLERIDGE
Related Products
By Hugh Logue, Newswatch Editor
A senior Family Division judge for
In a speech to the annual conference of the Association of Lawyers for Children this morning, Mr Justice Coleridge warned this lack of respect for family court orders is leading to an increasing number of hearings and ever more interventions by guardians, social workers, Cafcass officers and child experts.
The judge argued that in order to avoid a "flabby judicial response", especially at a time of unprecedented squeeze on public resources, that family courts need to reassert their authority. One of the ways in which he proposes to do this would be to introduce a three strikes system whereby if a parent disobeys a court order three times the residence of the child should be transferred to the other parent.
Summing up his argument, Mr Justice Coleridge said: "my principle point this morning is that we should all, all of us involved in the system, be alive to the unintended slippage in the authority of the family court which has been creeping in and gathering momentum over the last decades and which we can no longer afford to ignore. Expression and projection of proper authority is of vital importance to parents, the courts and society. The rot must not be allowed to go further. In every way we simply cannot afford it."
In addition he said that family courts should seriously consider following the Australian example and resume wearing robes and removing the carpets and indoor plants to reinforce the authority of the court.
Although the judge was speaking in his own capacity and not on behalf family judiciary in
Mr Justice Coleridge criticised the way in which too great an emphasis was being placed on listening uncritically to the views and wishes of children, including young children. This he said was leading to the danger of "undermining the family court's authority and proper function which is to arrive at a decision which is overall, best for the child."
"As a matter of both fact and law, children lack capacity to make important decisions. That is why they are treated as 'being under a disability' legally speaking," the judge said.
"If we forget this and too readily impose the decision on the child, surely we, all of us, are shirking our responsibility to a degree which is bordering on the abusive. In just the same way as the weak and indecisive parent allows the children to call the shots we are abnegating our function to a degree which is nothing short of cowardly and unfair.
"Children expect and are entitled to expect us to make these important decisions without overly and unnecessarily involving them in the process."
He added: "I suggest we need to reaffirm, redefine and re-establish the proper function and role of the family court and family judge. It is to act as the proper and appointed authority figure both towards the parents and the children. Not another expert or welfare officer."
Speaking about the recently announced 23% cut in the Ministry of Justice budget , Mr Justice Coleridge expressed the view that the implications could not possibly have been properly considered. He said "the law of unintended consequences make it quite impossible" to predict the implications of the cuts.
In order to improve efficiencies in family courts, the judge also called for better judicial training to reduce the need to appoint child experts.
It is not the first time that Mr Justice Coleridge has been outspoken. In a speech to a Resolution conference in 2008 the judge said that an "epidemic" of family failure was "as marked and as destructive as global warming".
CSA staff member tells fathers to commit suicide
http://www.csahell.com/csa-staff-member-tells-fathers-to-commit-suicide-1828.html
CSA staff member tells fathers to commit suicide
This week we posted a story direct to our Facebook page about the New Fathers 4 Justice protest that took place in
This was very unpleasant, but as this website found out, Jamie actually works for the Child Support Agency. He works for the CSA in
“what a joke – a load of blokes who cudnt keep their pants on and expect to get away without paying. Id pay some of them to jump off some ver tall buildings with their batman suits on – then we’ll see how man they are lol”
We’re disgusted by this man’s comments and his attitude towards fathers, yet he seems typical of the sort of person who works for the CSA. Hopefully the CSA will take action against him for his offensive and hurtful comments towards a sector of society that is already under immense pressure, and a number of fathers have already taken their own lives as a direct result of the CSA. People like Jamie already have blood on their hands; his outburst merely goes to show that some of the CSA staff are proud of that fact.
Here’s his comment from the Facebook page – please become a fan of the page if you haven’t already, and you can benefit from even more advice and news about the CSA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)