Welfare Reform Bill

Thousands of families with disabled parents and young carers are expected to lose out on vital benefits unless the Welfare Reform Bill is amended, a charity has warned.

Analysis by The Children’s Society has revealed that 25,000 people could lose up to £3,500 because of the scrapping of two disability premiums.

The severe disability premium is currently granted to disabled people who do not have anyone eligible for the carer’s allowance to look after them. People on the highest rate of disability living allowance can also claim the enhanced disability premium.

As the carer’s allowance is not available for people under the age of 16 or in full-time education, families rely considerably on the premiums to provide outside help.

But according to The Children’s Society, the introduction of the universal credit will mean these benefits will be abolished, leaving young carers and their families with a £70 gap in their weekly budget.

Enver Solomon, director of policy at the charity, said: "These benefits help disabled parents pay for aid to do housework or prepare meals, and losing them could mean that these chores will now be performed by children."

The Welfare Reform Bill is due for its second reading at the House of Lords on 13 September.

The Children’s Society chief executive Bob Reitemeier said: "It is wholly inappropriate to withdraw support to families with young carers. These changes will make life much harder than it already is for potentially thousands of vulnerable children whose caring responsibilities affect their education, wellbeing and future."

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: "We continue to spend over £40bn a year on disabled people and their services and our commitment to help support disabled people live independent lives runs at the heart of our welfare reforms.

"We are reforming the current system of complex disability premiums and will increase the support for the most vulnerable. We will also provide transitional protection to ensure that no one is worse off under our welfare reforms."

What is a McKenzie friend?

The court may allow a party in civil and family cases to have a friend or adviser to sit with them in court to give you advice and help take notes. This person is referred to as a Mackenzie friend, but they are not allowed to speak for the party in court without the permission of the Court.

In the Criminal Court and in most tribunals a party maybe represented by anyone of their own choosing. In the case of small claims hearings, the law is contained in Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules and a Practice Direction attached to it. This states that, at the hearing of a small claims trial, a party may be represented by:

• Him - or herself;

• A lawyer - which includes barristers, solicitors or legal executives; or,

• A lay representative. The Practice Direction defines "lay representative" as "any other person".
In most civil and Family Court hearings, the Court’s permission is required.

A party may be allowed to introduce a McKenzie friend into court to assist them. There is no right to have a McKenzie friend: the only right is that of the litigant to have reasonable assistance.
A McKenzie friend is not entitled to address the court without permission. If he does so, he becomes an advocate and requires the grant of a right of audience under s 27 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 2007.

However, generally, a litigant in person who wishes to have a McKenzie friend should be allowed to do so unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not so require and there is a strong presumption in favour of allowing the McKenzie friend (Re H (Minors) (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie Friend) [1997] 3 FCR 618, CA & Re O (Children): Re W-R: Re W (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 759, LTL AC0109048, Times 27.6.05

The court can prevent a McKenzie friend from continuing to act as such where the assistance given is inimical to the efficient administration of justice, for example, where the friend is indirectly running the case or using the litigant as a puppet.

The President of the Family Division has given update guidance on the issue;
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/guidance/PresidentofFamilyDivisionsGuidanceonMcKenzieFriends/

On the discretion to grant rights of audience to individuals who do not meet the stringent requirements of the CLSA, the court has held that it should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances and should pause long before granting rights to individuals who made a practice of seeking to represent otherwise unrepresented litigants (principles extracted from R v Bow County Court ex p Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1807, D v S (rights of audience) [1997] 1 FLR 724 and Noueri v Paragon Finance plc, CA, [2001] EWCA Civ 1402 (19.9.01).

SFA understanding and stance on McKenzie friends

Vagaries on McKenzie friends and self-representation.

Criminal Court. Human Rights Act article 6.3 allows legal representation of your own choosing so anyone can represent you in the trial and preliminary hearings. Open Courts. However, lay person cannot attend Police interview, you will need a solicitor or the duty Solicitor.

Employment tribunal. No need for a Mckenzie friend as anyone can represent a party in the Employment tribunal. Open Court hearings and litigant in person can charge £25 per hour for work on their own case.

Small claims Court – representation by McKenzie friend permitted.

Contrast the above with these:-

Civil and family proceedings. Right to Mckenzie friend a strong one but rights of audience in only special circumstances. Right of audience and litigation rights are separate issues. Family proceedings in closed Court but open Court of appeal and if same or similar issues aired on Judicial review; open court!

Tribunal hearings generally right to assistance and right to lay representation for example in Child benefit, DHSS and CSA tribunals. Yet this right would not exist on the same facts in Judicial Review proceedings.

Companies can appoint any employee to represent them in litigation.

Guardians have right of audience if not represented in Court.

Family proceedings and in effect any issue related to your own children is emotional, and when emotions are charged a litigant-in-person [LIP] probably does have an idiot for a client but as many have found they prefer representing themselves as at least that way they can blame no-one else for the outcome and will have tried.

A LIP can have the assistance of a McKenzie friend who can do the following;

• Provide moral support for the litigant
• Take notes
• Help with case papers
• Quietly give advice on:

- points of law or procedure;
- issues that the litigant may wish to raise in court;
- questions the litigant may wish to ask witnesses.

In Family and civil Courts the practice direction on McKenzie friends 2010 allows you to be represented by close family member e.g your husband or wife, to have lay advocate, where legal aid is denied through no fault of your own and cannot afford private representation and where the person’s health precludes them from addressing the Court AND they cannot afford private representation and where the litigant is relatively inarticulate and prompting may un-necessarily prolong proceedings. No such bars exist in the employment tribunal or other tribunals so what is so special about the Family Courts?

It maybe there is fear of McKenzie friends taking an increasing role and undermining the monopoly held by Solicitors and barristers, yet the cost of access to justice and the need for equality of arms is such that many are forced to seek other routes of representation.

Sections 27 and 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (the Act) respectively govern rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation. They provide the court with a discretionary power to grant unqualified persons, including MFs, such rights in relation to particular proceedings. While the court should be slow to grant any application under s.27 or s.28 of the Act from a MF, it should be prepared to do so for good reason bearing in mind the general objective set out in section 17(1) and the general principle set out in section 17(3) of the Act and all the circumstances of the case. Such circumstances are likely to vary greatly: see paragraphs 40-42 of the judgment of Munby J. in Re N (A child) (McKenzie Friend: Rights of Audience) [2008]EWHC 2042(Fam). If the litigant in person wishes the MF to be granted a right of audience or the right to conduct the litigation, an application must be made at the start of the hearing.

The Judiciary may worry about the monopoly on the bar being eroded and cost effective alternatives taking over, on legal aid a Barrister often has insufficient time to prepare for trial, is governed by the summary and outline from the acting Solicitor and which may contain inaccuracies and few litigants get to see these documents heavily influencing the portrayal of their case.

As far as McKenzie friends charging for their services go, the 2010 practice direction on McKenzie friends states;

27) Litigants can enter into lawful agreements to pay fees to MFs for the provision of reasonable assistance in court or out of court by, for instance, carrying out clerical or mechanical activities, such as photocopying documents, preparing bundles, delivering documents to opposing parties or the court, or the provision of legal advice in connection with court proceedings. BUT Note that Such fees cannot be lawfully recovered from the opposing party.

28) Fees said to be incurred by MFs for carrying out the conduct of litigation, where the court has not granted such a right, cannot lawfully be recovered from either the litigant for whom they carry out such work or the opposing party.

29) Fees said to be incurred by MFs for carrying out the conduct of litigation after the court has granted such a right are in principle recoverable from the litigant for whom the work is carried out. Such fees cannot be lawfully recovered from the opposing party.

30) Fees said to be incurred by MFs for exercising a right of audience following the grant of such a right by the court are in principle recoverable from the litigant on whose behalf the right is exercised. Such fees are also recoverable, in principle, from the opposing party as a recoverable disbursement: CPR 48.6(2) and 48(6)(3)(ii).

Related articles on McKenzie friends

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1568

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend

http://www.richardgregory.org.uk/history/mckenzie-friends.htm

http://www.fnf.org.uk/law-and-information/mckenzie-friends

http://www.factuk.org/2010/07/new-mckenzie-friends-guidance-issued/

The Annual Charities Christmas Fayre

We will be there so come along and see us and make a day of it.

Childminders receive top marks. Why adoption and fostering goes wrong

By Joe Lepper Thursday, 25 August 2011

The number of childminders receiving one of the top two marks from Ofsted has increased by 11 percentage points over the past two years.

According to the latest National Childminding Association (NCMA) membership survey the proportion who received a "good" or "outstanding" score this year was 74 per cent, compared with 63 per cent in 2009 and 72 per cent last year.

NCMA chief executive Catherine Farrell said the findings show the greater commitment to training and an increasing sense of professionalism in the sector.

She said: "Similar to last year, more than three quarters of our childminders have undertaken training in the past 12 months and more than half hold a childcare qualification at Level 3 or above. These large numbers demonstrate a strong commitment to ongoing professional development."

The survey also revealed that nine out of 10 childminders are prepared to offer out of hours care before and after school. On average they are providing care for six children a week and 16 per cent care for 10 or more children

Why adoption and fostering goes wrong

“One leading adoption charity estimates that a third of adoptions break down these days”.

Due to immense fear a child’s conscious mind blanks out a lot about being taken away from its birth parents but the child's sub consciousness never forgets and there is always that longing for that family love that can never be satisfied by adoption or fostering. A child should be kept in the family as close to the birth parents as much as possible.

A child subconsciously hankers for the love he/she was deprived of the birth family.

This subconscious yen not being fulfilled along with memories that come back as the child grows up causes frustration/ anger/ resentment and the child becomes bitter and unmanageable.

That is why kinship care should be the very first point of care when children are deprived of their parents.

The care system only caters for the physical child not the emotional or spiritual child because of social services cost policy. Cut backs now will cost the public purse a whole lot more in the future when the children that go through the care system turn out to be gang members.

There is a huge rise of gangs reported in the media lately it would be interesting too research into how many of the gang members were brought up outside their birth family.

Jailed for son’s balloon tribute

By IRINA NELSON, Crime Reporter

Published: 01 Jul 2011

A DAD has been jailed for displaying 100 balloons outside his son's school on the lad's eighth birthday.

David Hawksworth was caged for three months by Dundee Sheriff Richard Davidson for harassment by making the tribute to the boy he'd been banned from seeing for seven years.

Now English-based Hawksworth's fellow activists at controversial dads' rights group Fathers 4 Justice have vowed to target the lawman's home after he slung him in Perth nick last week.

And they branded Sheriff Richardson racist after he told Hawksworth that he should "clear off back to England".

Last night a spokesman said: "Dave's crime was to place 100 balloons outside his son's school on his eighth birthday after being denied access for many years.

"Activists are targeting and heading to the home of Sheriff Davidson after his racist slur."

The spokesman also said they would shut down roads in Scotland and protest at Blairgowrie Golf Club, Perthshire — but their reasons were not made clear.

Real Fathers For Justice also hit out. Chairman Mike Kelly said: "This father has been lambasted, racially abused and then hung out to dry in prison alongside murderers and rapists. All he wants to be is a father to his kids."

Hawksworth and other activists protested at Dundee Sheriff Court last week at his hearing.

Sheriff Davidson caged him after saying the balloons present was "threatening" behaviour.

Last night a Tory spokesman said: "This seems a bizarre decision. Scottish Sun readers will be left wondering what it is that we don't know that ever led to such a judgment."

Sheriff Davidson refused to comment last night.

Birthday wishes ... dad's banner

Read more: http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/3671251/Jailed-for-sons-balloon-tribute.html#ixzz1WE4JmMfG

The Daily Mail wants your story

Hi Jim,

Thankyou very much for your help on the phone. As we discussed, it would be wonderful if you could keep in contact to let me know of any grandparents fighting for their grandchildren who have seen them fostered or adopted by other families.
If there are any who have a particular story to tell about their struggle, the Daily Mail is very supportive of grandparents and would really like to talk to them.
Nice speaking to you and I hope to be in touch with you again soon.

Kind regards,

Vicky.
--
Victoria Allen
Reporter
Scottish Daily Mail
0141 331 4736
07814 561219

United Nations Rights of the child

IMPORTANT NEWS: Next year the Government will be letting the United Nations Committee know how they are doing on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Office of the Children’s Rights Director will be doing a lot of work in this area and will be seeking views from young people about this.

This Document was written by the Office of the Children’s Rights Director. It explains :-

1 What the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is and answers some common questions.

2 Tells you what YOUR rights are under the Convention.

3 Tells you what the Children’s Rights Director will do.

11 WWHHAATT iiss tthhee UUnniitteedd NNaattiioonnss CCoonnvveennttiioonn ooff tthhee Riights of the Child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (UNCRC) is an agreement by the governments of the world saying what rights children should have. It covers rights on just about everything and applies to everyone under 18 years of age.

Did the UK sign it?

Yes. Nearly every country in the world has signed up and agreed to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Do adults have to do what it says?

They should always try to, but the law does not say that they must.

What use is it then?

The Convention is important because it acts as a guide on how children should be treated. It also helps that each country that has signed it judges people from other countries on how well they treat children.

Like most people, staff, social workers and teachers would like to think that they do a good job in working with children. However, inspectors and others could say that they are not, if they don't respect the rights you have.

_____________

Mike Lindsay

OCRD

1

Can you tell me some of my rights?

Not all of the rights within the Convention will apply to you all of the time. But we've put together those that we think could affect some of you.

22 YYoouurr RRiigghhttss uunnddeerr tthhee CCoonnvveennttiioonn

• You have the right not to be picked on or treated unfairly just because you are different from other children. For example, if you are black, or you're a girl or disabled; if you follow a different religion, or simply because you happen to be in care. You should be treated the same as other children.

• When decisions are made, you have the right to say what you think and expect that adults will listen, and do what is best for you.

• You have the right to information that is about you, or that is about the home or school you are living in or any services that you might need to use.

• You have the right to your own family name. This is a basic part of your identity, and should not be changed unless you or your parents want to change it.

• You have the right to think and believe what you like, and choose your own religion, but your parents should guide you. Also, if you have a different nationality then you have the right to enjoy your own culture and use your own language.

• You have the right to privacy such as keeping your own personal diary that other people shouldn't read, or staff not entering your bedroom without knocking and waiting for your reply.

• If you are disabled, you have the right to special care and education to help you live a full and independent life.

• You have the right to special protection if you're a refugee and have been forced to leave your country because of danger.

• As you grow up, those looking after you should respect your ability to understand, and encourage you to do things for yourself.

• You have the right to keep in touch with your parents if, for any reason, you are separated from either of them.

• No one has the right to hurt you. Adults must protect you from violence, abuse or neglect, and if you do get hurt, they must do something about it.

_____________

Mike Lindsay

OCRD

2

• If, for any reason, your family are unable to bring you up, you have the right to special care - which could mean being adopted, fostered, or living in a children's home. If you're adopted or 'in care', your wishes and needs should be put first - not your parents' or any other adult's. If you're 'in care', others must check regularly to make sure that you're being treated properly.

• You have the right to enough to eat, adequate clothes, and a roof over your head. If whoever looks after you can't afford these, the government should help them.

• You have the right to education.

• You have the right not to be punished in any way that makes you look stupid or small.

• You have the right not be made to do harmful work. Work should not stop you from learning, being healthy, or growing up. There are minimum ages for when children can work, and laws to make sure that you're not working in bad conditions.

• You have the right not to be sexually exploited or abused. No one has the right to do things to your body. Those looking after you, whether parents, staff or teachers, must keep you safe from other adults who may try to sexually harm you in some way. If you're worried about this you should always try to tell an adult you can trust.

• You have the right to meet other people and join or set up your own groups, as long as this doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

• You have the right to grow up healthy, which means getting proper healthcare and information to help you stay healthy.

• You have the right to play, and to relax by doing things like sport, music, drama and art.

• You have the right to be protected from drugs - you shouldn't be forced to take them, make them, or deal them and those looking after you should protect you from other adults who may try to get you into drugs.

• If you are accused of doing something wrong, you have the right to be treated with respect and have a fair hearing.

33 TThhee CChhiillddrreenn’’ss RRiigghhttss DDiirreeccttoorr wwiillll rreessppeecctt::--

• YOUR RIGHT to privacy, by not asking you to tell us about anything you don't want to

_____________

Mike Lindsay

OCRD

3

• YOUR RIGHT to confidentiality, by not telling anyone else who it was that told us something, unless it is to help to keep you or other children safe

• YOUR RIGHT to information, by giving you booklets and putting details on the internet that explain what we do

• YOUR RIGHT to complain, by asking you to tell us if we do or say anything that upsets you, or you are not happy about, and passing it on to the right person to get it sorted out

• YOUR RIGHT to have your say, by inviting you to give your views, and asking inspectors who visit your home, school or service to try not to do anything that could affect you without first asking you what you think

Children's commissioner seeks to counter riot misconceptions

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/Joint_working/article/1085063/Childrens-commissioner-seeks-counter-riot-misconceptions/

By Janaki Mahadevan Tuesday, 16 August 2011

The children's commissioner for England has sought to correct the "damaging misconceptions" that have led some people to believe that most of the rioters across England last week were children.

Atkinson: 'Now is the time to involve our children and young people in the debate'

Maggie Atkinson said now was the time to support the "overwhelming majority" of young people who condemn the violent behaviour witnessed.

"Sadly, some have gained the impression that most of the rioters were children but the reality is that reportedly [more than] 75 per cent of those being charged are over 18," she said. "We must do all we can to to counter these damaging misconceptions and to support the overwhelming majority of law-abiding children and young people. I am proud to say that young people have been some of the most constructive members of society in their condemnation of the rioting and in the clean-up efforts in their communities.

"We must take care not to blame and certainly not to write off a whole generation of young people. We would never claim, because a minority of adults rioted, that most adults in England are criminals."

However, Atkinson was also strong in her criticism of the actions displayed by those who looted and damaged property.

"Violence, rioting and destruction can never be justified or condoned," she said. "Those found guilty of crime should feel the full consequences of their actions, which may include a custodial sentence."

Looking to the future, Atkinson said it was imperative that the first step in understanding the root causes of the riots is to talk to those involved, including children.

"Now is the time to involve our children and young people in the debate and in finding the solutions, including those who have committed offences or whose lives are affected by whatever issues caused last week's troubling events," she said. "We need a national commitment to working as a society to ensure all children and young people have a real stake and a voice in their society."

CHILDREN IN THE CARE SYSTEM ARE PRISONERS WITH NO RIGHTS.

Crimes committed against humanity, may or can result in a prison sentence, under the International Courts of human rights; all persons charged with a crime, all have rights to a fair hearing with a fair trial in an open court, with no gagging orders and that the media are allowed to publish the facts.

Once sentenced to prison, all prisoners are given under the human rights, food clothing telephone calls, listen to music, libraries, facilities to qualify for exams, gymnasiums for work outs, arts and crafts watch television, newspapers daily, allowed to smoke, buy Christmas and birthday cards to send to their loved ones and family, post letters and most of all every prisoner has visitation rights, in actual fact a person sentenced to a prison sentence has all of the rights as a normal person living in the community, the only human rights they have lost because they committed a crime is not being able to go out of the door and buy a pint.

Children who report an abuse against a parent parents foster carers or adopted parents.

I have been told by the system set in place to protect children, ALL children are all liars and do not know what they want. Children have rights under the human rights act to a fair trial, prisoners have a right to a hearing in an open court, but children’s cases are heard in a closed family court with the families denied the right to a fair hearing, with gagging orders by the courts on the press and families, also many children if able to speak for them self’s are all ignored, the only people with a voice in the family courts are the social workers NSPCC Cafcass physiologists and so many other organisations involved all known as the experts, who we are told are employed in the Childs best interest, and so one child has an army of experts?? Along with the courts to contend with, with most cases for one child in the system it can or may cost the tax payers in excess of £250.000 per case and lasting for up to a year and then ongoing with the sale of the child by the foster or adoption agencies along with bonuses to the local councils from governments for meeting the adoption and foster care targets?

Having questioned social workers, who I may add most from the EC Australia or Africa, (question) are you aware of the children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of a Child and of their human rights, out of fifty social workers the reply was, I have heard of it, but don’t know what it entails, and very few said no never heard of it.

A child is taken away with no rights by a social worker on their assumptions or lies, or a child can report an abuse and is then sold into the system via the adoption or foster agencies, children from the first day of being in care have all rights stripped from them, no contact with the family, no telephone calls no letters and the family have no knowledge of where that child lives, as all contact is denied to a child the family and grandparents.

Prisoners can commit murder steal, sexually abuse babies and children, sell drugs, abuse society in what ever way and still have the right to a life and family, and with tax payers money can now as many have done so, had payments in the last year in excess of £1.600.000 million paid to prisoners for abuse and wrongful arrest, yet an innocent child is labelled with no rights what so ever loss of family and all branded as a liars, lose their right to their childhood days with happiness gone and still cannot sue to give them back all they have lost. Which is or was there life’s minds and families.

So perhaps we should look at building prisons for children, as then children would get the same rights that prisoners have and also to be heard in an open court for a fair trial and have their human rights given back to them, same as any person in prison.

The differences between prisoners and children, prisoners do wrong and have their rights.

What has a child got nothing? Cannot go to a park, be cuddled and loved by a family and lose what can never be given back childhood days of playing with grandparents and family.

Sorry I am wrong, from the age of five they can play sex games as that is what is now being taught in the school, as I wrote to the Prime Minister Mr Cameron, so we watch children playing sex and learning from sex as opposed to playing with toys and learning.

Maggie Tuttle

Great Car for Sale.

*For Sale*

2005 Fiat Doblo Freedom. 1.9 dynamic deisol. High roof. Top of the range model Alloy wheels. Metallic red. One owner.

With parcel shelf to quickly replace the wheelchair ramp if desired as an estate.

Air con. Electric windows. 9 months

2 new tyres and exhaust for M.O.T. of 9 Mths 52k miles driven mainly by my wife as i am disabled. Service history. It has radio/cd player. 2 extra seats can be added. To make it a 7 seater. Tow bar.

This is a very thrifty car, the best i have ever had and Reason for sale is i have got a new very large wheelchair and we lose two seats when it is carried so need more space.

£4500 ono

0141 882 5658

Letter to president Zuma.

Sent by Email: 9^th August 2011

Dear President Zuma,

It has come to my attention through Maggie Tuttle from the UK, regarding the situation concerning “Stolen Children” taken by Social Services. Apparently it is good business to live in the UK and become a foster parent or adopt a child through these services.

It appears that the old adage “money is the root of all evil” would certainly apply to these cases. I am in possession of information concerning a family from South Africa living in the UK, the Musa family, that has six children and those children have been taken from their family and put into the care of Social Services. I understand that the Musa family have lots of support from various organizations who are lobbying to assist them, in having their children returned to them. There are thousands of children that are being taken from loving families to be either fostered, or adopted , never to see their families again. What is really troublesome in these cases is, grandparents who are willing to take their grandchildren into their home, are being denied, due to lies and deceit from Social Services and their Agencies.

You are obviously aware of this terrible situation, as I have been informed of your intent to boycott the Olympic Games being held in 2012 in the UK. Maggie Tuttle and the Walker Brothers, celebrities from the sixties and others, are in the process of organizing a “Children’s Live Aid” day in 2012, which will have major celebrities from the music world drawing attention to the plight of these children, taken from their families. The ideal situation would be to tie in “Children’s Live Aid” concert with the boycott, if you are willing to proceed.

This is going to be an ongoing affair of drawing attention to the way Social Services deal with children and their families, and the way the courts put gagging orders on those who are the closest members of the children’s family, including the grandparents.

I admire you taking a stand and I am sure in your position as President of the South African country will not go unnoticed. I will be there myself on that day as I am going to participate in the “ Children’s Live Aid” day.

I am living in Canada now, but I will be making the trip a few times in the current year and in 2012.

With very best wishes and in concern,

Baroness Agnes von Mehren

Toronto, Ontario Canada Email: avm33@rogers.com

We need grandparents to tell their story and also for filming.

Hi jimmy

I now have 2 families who have agreed to be filmed for our project, however, I still have had no luck with finding grandparents to talk about not having contact with their grandkids. I was really moved by Anne's story and thought that she may agree to be part of our filming project.

I am also interested to hear from any other grandparents who would like to tell their story on film - I know that this can be very difficult for people but it is important to get across the message about how not seeing their grandchildren has affected their lives.

Many thanks for your continued support.

--
Bernadette Lynass
Project Co-ordinator

Connecting Generations

Relationships Scotland - Family Mediation South Lanarkshire
Regent House

9 High Patrick Street
Hamilton
South Lanarkshire
ML3 7ES

t: 01698 421 333
m: 07966371698
e: bernadette@familysupport.org.uk
w: www.familysupport.org.uk

Don’t blame parents!!! Blame the government for the inhuman treatment of children in the care system,

Press release. Immediate

Don’t blame parents!!! Blame the government for the inhuman treatment of children in the care system, The University of Crime. Children need their families.

The government are trying to pass the buck for the riots onto parents. What a cheek and insult to the millions of parents. It is well known that children removed from their family by social services and brought up in the care system are non achievers, disrespectful, unmanageable, and have no respect for anyone. They are the mainstream of the gangs that roam our streets looking for that family feeling they were robbed of when they were cruelly separated from their family.

The government do not even try to keep children with their families. Snatch, groom them and adopt to the first people who fancy adopting a child. Grandparents have been campaigning for years to be taken seriously in caring for their grandchildren rather than the care system but the government turn a blind eye to them and tell them you have no rights. We don’t need to talk to you. Grandparents have won the Charter for Grandchildren from the Scottish government and if made mandatory for professionals in the care system would ensure millions of children would be placed with their grandparents if that is in their best interest rather than social services.

The British family is being destroyed by government policies which are based only on cost at present but this passes the problem and even more cost onto future authorities when the children are adults and committing crimes on society.

Ends

Jimmy Deuchars

Grandparents Apart UK

22 Alness crescent

Glasgow G52 1PJ

0141 882 5658

http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

The care system in this country for children is an absolute failure

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/232856/3,000-in-care-call-ChildLine-to-tell-of-abuse-misery/

RECORD numbers of children are calling ChildLine to report abuse and neglect while in care, a new report reveals.

The care system in this country is an absolute failure for children. BBC Eastenders have got it just right with Billy Mitchell and his partner and granddaughter being brought up in care. Non achievers in life, unmanageable, unemployable, thinking only what they can screw out of life and don’t care who they hurt in the process. Social services and work only for their own best interest and not the child’s.

River City is also portraying how women can manipulate the system against a father by using the police and getting away with it. This education for women inclined on using the system for alienation, revenge or just plain badness is readily available by contacting Woman’s Aid. The founder of this organization is disgusted by the way they conduct their service it is a far cry from what she intended.

The government say grandparents are important in children’s lives but continue to fund Woman’s Aid to alienate the paternal grandparents in a child’s life. The SNP Scottish Government had it in their manifesto to continue funding Woman’s Aid.

Grandparents must be considered more via The Charter for Grandchildren for early intervention, protection and stability in caring for children. They are the only people who know their families shortcomings.

Continue

More than 3,000, some as young as five, contacted the help­line last year to report ­serious failings and weaknesses that included physical and sexual abuse, according to NSPCC research.

This represents one in 26 of all children in the care system and is a rise of more than 30 per cent over the past five years. Experts say the children who call ChildLine are the tip of the iceberg. Most never reach out for help.

The increase reflects the surge in children taken into care since the case of Baby Peter ­Connelly two years ago, together with an ­appalling lack of safeguards to protect them.

Official figures show the number taken into care grew eight per cent in 2009-2010 to more than 83,000 compared with the previous year. Peter Liver, director of ChildLine, said: ­“Every day looked-after children talk to us about lives filled with pain and hurt. We hear from children who have been beaten or ­sexually assaulted while in care. Others feel abandoned or unloved by their new carers. Many have reached crisis point.”

Ends

Jimmy Deuchars

Grandparents Apart UK

22 Alness crescent

Glasgow G52 1PJ

0141 882 5658

http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

Jimmy Deuchars: Resignation from the ASPP (SSCUP)

To whom it may concern.

I Jimmy Deuchars have resigned from the all Scotland Pensioners Party for the following reasons. I feel I cannot work with an organisation that it in my opinion only invites candidates to the meetings that are in agreement with the chosen few. The pursuit of the cause for Grandparents / Grandchildren although agreed orally was never included in the manifesto as promised.

Pre Election meetings concerning the progress of the party were conducted and decisions were made without my and other candidate’s being informed.

Hustings were arranged without the candidates for those areas being informed.

I had previously made my thoughts known about being unhappy at the way the party was being run and I was told to bring them up at the post election meeting but I was not informed when this meeting took place and decisions were made which I was not privy too.

Jimmy Deuchars

Governments are failing to protect abused children.

The NSPCC are bombarding us with their adverts. The child has to get his own supper again, or he goes home to a fist. If the NSPCC claims of abuse in the home are correct then all the governments of the UK are turning a blind eye to their findings and are colluding in child abuse.

The government’s stance is grandparents having a right of contact are not in the best interests of the children. Is this stance justifiable when NSPCC is constantly advertising on television about how much children are abused in their own home? Contact can simply be by phone, letter, email etc. or visits. Contact to make sure they are safe.

Grandparents agree that a mother is usually the best person to care for her children when all is well. What happens when it is not?

Mothers have the protection of the law and the government at their beck and call. Could this be the problem? It is the children that should have that protection, with grandparents able to support them by seeing what’s happening and to help them in these circumstances.

The majority of children are well looked after, but too many are not. These children are left out, maltreated and unnoticed until they end up in hospital or the abuse is so far gone that neighbours report it to social services and they take the children, scarred for life, into care. This is a huge emotional and financial expense that could be avoided with early intervention.

Government figures say 60,000 children are living in drug related households in the UK. They are not helping them or letting anyone else help them either.

Grandparents are asking for a legal right of contact, not parental rights. They ask for the right to contact their grandchildren a couple of hours a month or by negotiation through mediation, letters and birthday cards, presents and phone calls. Children need this right unless their safety would be in danger by doing so.

But the governments are closed to this idea and allow more and more children to be abused in their own homes when it could be spotted earlier if grandparents were allowed that right of contact.

The government’s adamant stance is not in the best interests of children. We need them to wake up to the very strong advertising of the NSPCC that there is wide spread of abuse of children in their own homes.

Or is the Governments assuming the NSPCC are telling lies?

Ends

Grandparents Apart UK

Jimmy Deuchars. 0141 882 5658
www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

LAY REPRESENTATION IN THE COURT OF SESSION AND THE SHERIFF COURT

Introduction

1. Sections 126 and 127 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 amend the Court of Session’s rulemaking powers so as to enable rules to be made permitting a lay representative to make oral submissions to the court on behalf of a party to the cause in any proceedings in the civil courts. The provisions arise from a recommendation of the Civil Courts Review. They are here.

2. The provisions come into force on 1 September 2011.

3. It is necessary for the Court now to give consideration to whether to exercise these new powers. To this end, the Lord President has established a working group to devise an appropriate policy. This working group is chaired by Lord Pentland. Its members are drawn from the Court of Session and Sheriff Court Rules Councils and the Scottish Government. Its aim is to present policy proposals, accompanied by suitable amendments of the rules of court, to the councils by the end of October. This is with a view to amendments of the rules being made as early as possible in 2012.

4. The group has now met and reached some initial views on what the policy should be. In order that its final proposals are as well-informed as they can be, views are sought on the initial policy proposal. That is the purpose of this document.

Background

5. The existing position in the two Courts differs somewhat. The present arrangements (enabled by section 36(1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971) permit lay representatives to conduct litigation, including appearing, in summary causes and small claims in the Sheriff Court. In addition, section 7

1

of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010 makes provision for approved lay representatives to represent debtors in repossession cases in the Sheriff Court.

6. The two Courts also take slightly different approaches to the concept of “lay assistance” (that is, the concept of a person who may assist a party litigant in court but not speak on his or her behalf). Chapter 12A of the Rules of the Court of Session requires the completion of a form containing certain statements and declarations before a person may be permitted to act as a lay assistant, whereas the amendments of the Sheriff Court rules (see rule 1.3A of the ordinary cause rules) do not. Furthermore, the Rules of the Court of Session require an application for the approval of a lay assistant to be made by motion; the Sheriff Court rules merely require a “request”.

7. The group’s aim is to make recommendations which take due account of the different circumstances of the two courts whilst maintaining, where possible, consistency of overall approach.

Analysis of the new provisions

8. The new provisions only permit the making of an oral submission by a lay person. They do not facilitate any wider ability for a non-lawyer to represent a party, such as is permitted by section 36(1) of the 1971 Act in relation to summary causes. It is noted, accordingly, that the submission of documents in support of an oral submission, such as supporting written submissions or a rule 22 note in ordinary actions in the Sheriff Court, will still require formally to be performed by the litigant. (This does not of course preclude the litigant from submitting a document prepared by the intended lay representative, although it would be the litigant who has responsibility for its terms).

9. The group also notes that the new provisions do not afford any scope for a lay person to engage in the examination of witnesses. This falls beyond the concept of an oral submission.

2

10. The group observes that the new provisions permit a lay person to make submissions only “when appearing at a hearing…along with a party to the cause”. Given that only natural persons can appear as parties, it is clear that the new provisions do not extend to permitting the making of an oral submission on behalf of a company or other non-natural person. The position in respect of such persons remains as recently analysed by the Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v UK Bankruptcy Ltd [2010] CSIH 80.

11. The group considers that a lay representative must be regarded as distinct from a person affording lay assistance under the new rules recently made to that end (Chapter 12A of the Rules of the Court of Session and rule 1.3A of the Ordinary Cause Rules). In some cases a lay assistant might also be considered suitable to be a lay representative, but this would depend on the particular circumstances.

Discussion

12. Taking these points into consideration, the group discussed the policy aim of sections 126 and 127. The group took as its starting point the fact that the sections had evidently been devised to implement the recommendations in Chapter 11 of the Civil Courts Review. In particular, it was noted that the Review considered (para 51 of that chapter) that “there may be exceptional circumstances in which it would be appropriate to permit a McKenzie friend to assist a party litigant and, with the court’s permission, to address the court. The law at present is unclear and it would be desirable to clarify this for the small number of cases where such representation would help the court.” The limited nature of this reform was emphasised by the following paragraph, which said that “[t]his is not to say that parties would have a right to be represented by a McKenzie friend. Assistance and representation would be subject to the control and discretion of the court and permission would be given only if the court was satisfied that this would help. The court would

3

have to be satisfied as to the character and conduct of the proposed representative and would be at liberty to withdraw permission for that person to act for the party. In particular, the court would wish to be satisfied that the McKenzie friend was not offering his services for financial reward.”

13. The group was of the view that the Court should take its lead from the Review and introduce limited and controlled reform in line with the recommendations.

14. Accordingly, the group favoured adopting the test which the Review recommended, namely that the test for granting an application should be that it would “assist the court”. This differed from the test in relation to granting an application for lay assistance, which was that it should be refused “only if it would be contrary to the efficient administration of justice to grant it”. That test is appropriate given the particular role of the lay assistant. But in relation to lay representation, the test should be a somewhat tighter and more focussed one.

15. The group also favoured applying the same requirement of suitability that applies to lay assistance.

16. After discussion, the group favoured including in the rules a requirement that an application for lay representation should be made in advance of the hearing concerned. It was felt that the interests of the other party or parties needed to be protected. It was also felt that such an approach was warranted by the need for the efficient disposal of business as well as ensuring that the person was a suitable person to make an oral submission.

17. However, the possibility of an application being made on the day should not be precluded as there might be exceptional circumstances in which this was warranted. An obvious example might be where the litigant became unwell on the day of the hearing.

4

18. The group discussed the form which the application should take in the ordinary case where it was made in advance of the hearing. There was some resistance to the suggestion that a written motion should be required in the Sheriff Court on the basis that this would give rise to a fee, though it was difficult to see how the application could be made without a motion. It was noted that it would be open to the Scottish Government to amend the fees order if the view was taken that charging a fee was inappropriate. In the Court of Session, the model of Chapter 12A should be followed – that is, that there would require to be a motion accompanied by a suitable form.

19. The group discussed whether it would be possible in the rules to allow a standing authorisation for a lay representative in relation to all hearings in a case; or for representatives from a certain organisation in all cases. However, it was noted that it was not the intention of the power conferred by sections 126 and 127 to create a class of authorised lay representatives; and the question of whether the making of a submission by a particular person in a particular hearing would assist the court required to be judged according to the circumstances of the hearing itself.

20. The group agreed that it was appropriate for the rules to prohibit the lay representative from receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, from the litigant. This was consistent with the position reached in relation to lay assistance. This was not intended to operate as a barrier to representation by remunerated members of advice agencies.

21. As with lay assistance, the group was of the view that:

(a) permission to make an oral submission should be automatically withdrawn in the event of the litigant obtaining legal representation;

(b) the court should be able to withdraw permission in the event that it considered that the test for permitting it was no longer met or that the person was no longer suitable (though this would not of course apply once the submission had commenced);

5 6

(c) where permission was granted:

(i) the litigant would be permitted to show the representative any document (including a court document);

(ii) the litigant would be permitted to impart to the representative

information without contravening prohibitions on its disclosure but the representative would then be subject to the same prohibitions;

(d) any expenses incurred by the litigant as a result of the representation were not to be recoverable expenses in the proceedings.

Submission of views

22. Views are sought on the initial policy proposal and on any other matter which is considered relevant. Views should be directed, in writing, not later than 31 August 2011 to:

The Lord President’s Private Office

Parliament House

Edinburgh EH1 1RQ

or by email to: lppo@scotcourts.gov.uk.

23. Responses will be made available to the members of the working group and also to the members of the Rules Councils. They may also in due course be published. Please indicate in your response if you do not wish it to be published.