False Allegations by Social Services.

I have heard so so often about social services making allegations about people without proof to stop them having contact with children. People’s lives are being ruined and children are robbed of a loving family just for social services to get their own way. Why are social services above the law? Why are they allowed to get away with holding records that cannot be proven? In the following case umpteen MPs high ranking policemen and lawyers have been ignored by social services. David Cameron has been written to several times as was Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clark but all have slung a deaf ear. What good are MPs when they cannot get justice for anyone?

David Wilkins was 19 a soldier in the British Army and posted to Germany. He got into a fight in a bar with others soldiers and was charged along with others with ABH.

When David left the army he applied to the police and was accepted no bother at all and achieved the role of sergeant.

David is now 65 and trying to see his wife’s grandchildren but Oldham social services has said they cannot see them as Dave has a sexual charge against him from that fight way back in Germany. The funny thing was Dave and his wife had already been given custody of one of their grandchildren so there is much confusion about social services motives in this case.

There was no sexual charge at all and Dave has scoured the army and police records and has never been connected with any charge of sexual assault. A crime like that would have stopped Dave becoming a policeman, but no sexual crime has been committed.

Eventually social services claim it was via a telephone conversation they are basing these accusations. Dave and Brenda’s life has been ruined by this false allegation and their grandchildren have lost out in the grandparents love.

There must be an end to social services dirty tactics.

Parental alienation and the voices of children in family proceedings

Improving social well-being through education, research and innovation

22 July 2011

In a relatively small portion of all separation and divorce cases, children reject a parent. How and why does this happen? How do the courts respond to these cases, which are characterised by high levels of conflict between parents, and what should they do? What can we learn from the experience of other jurisdictions such as Canada and the US?

These were some of the questions addressed in a seminar hosted by the Foundation on 13 July and led by Professor Nicholas Bala from Queen’s University in Canada.

ow can courts respond better to high conflict cases and contact disputes?

The seminar started with a discussion of the controversial concept of ‘parental alienation.’ While rejecting the view that it is a ‘syndrome,’ Professor Bala recognizes the value of identifying cases where the hostile attitude of one parent results in a child having negative views of the other that are a reflection not of the child’s own experience, and resulting in unjustified rejection of that parent. This approach requires courts and professionals to distinguish cases where a child is justifiably rejecting a parent, for example due to abuse or neglect, from cases of alienation.

Professor Bala reviewed evidence about the prevalence of alienating behaviour, looking at both allegations and court findings on the extent to which one parent (usually the resident parent, usually the mother) may turn children against the other parent. He highlighted the short and long term ill effects of alienation on children, and examined the Canadian, American and English jurisprudence in this area, including consideration of contempt proceedings and variation in residency.

Professor Bala went on to consider how courts can better respond to high conflict cases and contact disputes. Some of his recommendations, such as the importance of judicial continuity and the need to drastically reduce delay, are relevant to current proposals in the Family Justice Review. He also advocated more judicial interviews with children, and better collaboration between courts and mental health professionals. He concluded that more serious consideration in appropriate cases of varying residence orders might benefit some children.

Hosting the seminar was part of our work in family law, which is a long- standing interest of the Foundation. We are particularly interested in how insights from other jurisdictions and disciplines can help inform policy or practice in the UK.

Professor Bala’s presentation is available to download from the link below:

Parental alienation and the voices of children in family proceedings, Professor Nicholas Bala, 13 July 2011 (PDF).

The ravings of a Tory MP on knife crime.

As I was writing this Mr Bob Blackwood MP of Harrow was speaking in parliament this evening on knife crime. Mr Blackwood said we need to encourage parents to ensure their children do not join gangs or carry knives.

Get in the real world Mr Blackwood. It is our experience that gang members are mainly the product of his governments care system where children are not treated as human beings but as commodities to be dealt with according to how cheaply they can dispose of them.

A million children in Britain do not see their grandparents because of the government’s policy for children. A Labour government acknowledged this and created the Charter for Grandchildren for professionals who work in the welfare of children to look more closely at the role grandparents can play in a child’s life rather than be fostered or forced adopted. If elected this year Scottish Labour planned to revisit the Charter for Grandchildren with a view to making it legal. Sadly this did not happen.

The SNP government has refused to accept the charter and passed responsibility for it to local authorities knowing fine well they cannot handle it as it needs done at government level. The SNP government fund a group called Woman’s Aid which does a good job in rescuing women from domestic violence but their counselling procedure includes excluding grandparents that have done no wrong at all and is not in the best interests of the child. Woman’s Aid refuses to meet to discuss finding a solution to this.

The SNP attitude was when asked about this “we have nothing further to add”

The governments by their indifference towards grandparents have created a ‘them and us’ situation between grandparents and social services and are often seen as a bully boy service mostly feared by families rather than respected.

If parents are unable to look after their children it would benefit them more to be cared for in a known home environment with someone they know and trust rather than being given to strangers. It is well known that children that go through the care system very often become non achievers. The effects of fostering or forced adoption from their birth family can devastate a child and affect them all their lives. This leads to insecurity, behaviour problems becoming unmanageable and growing up resenting society and joining the ever growing gangs which roam our streets for that lost family feeling.

Although it is a soap opera BBC East ender’s have the perfect scenario. Billy Mitchell and his partner Julie who were brought up in the care system. They are portrayed as non achievers, no hopers, poorly educated and always in trouble, never holding down a job and totally irresponsible. Now their granddaughter has turned up and she is the perfect street aware example always running away and having all the problems of a typical care child.

Do we want children to grow up like that? The rate the governments are snatching children and force adopting, gangs are exploding all over the UK

Grandparents (Access Rights) Bill 2010-11

Type of Bill:

Private Members' Bill (under the Ten Minute Rule, SO No 23)

Sponsor:

Andrew Percy

Progress of the Bill

Bill started in theHouse of Commons

1. House of Commons
   1. 
   2. 
   3. 
   4. 
   5. 
2. House of Lords
   1. 
   2. 
   3. 
   4. 
   5. 
3. 
4. Royal Assent

Last event

• 1st reading: House of Commons 23 November, 2010| 23.11.2010

Next event

• 2nd reading: House of Commons | 21.10.2011

All previous stages of the Bill

Latest news on the Bill

This Bill is expected to have its second reading debate on 21 October 2011.

This Bill was introduced to Parliament on 23 November 2010 under the Ten Minute Rule. This allows an MP to make his or her case for a new bill in a speech lasting up to ten minutes. An opposing speech may also be made before the House decides whether or not the bill should be introduced. If the MP is successful the bill is taken to have had its first reading.

This Bill is a Private Member’s Bill. These are often not printed until close to the second reading debate. If the text is not yet available here and you wish to know more about this bill please contact its sponsor, Andrew Percy.

Summary of the Bill

A Bill to give grandparents rights of access to their grandchildren in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes