Secret Justice, Private Hell

You can't request more than 20 challenges without solving them. Your previous challenges were flushed.

June 2008

In a perfect example of the effects of lack of scrutiny of family courts, ministers are unaware of what is happening. The astonishing truth is that they do not know what the law is, or how it operates. All of the recent ministers “for the family” have stated on the record that “the current legal position” is that “after separation, both parents should have a meaningful relationship with their children, providing it is safe”. But in fact, that is not the current legal position. The law only states that the decision should be made “in the best interests of the child”. Nowhere in all the thousands of pages of official “advice” on how contact between children and divorced or divorcing parents should be managed is there a single sentence which defines in a meaningful way what protecting and promoting “the best interests of the child” actually involves. There is certainly nothing that states that meaningful contact with both parents is in the best interests of the child. So judges in the family courts interpret the law, quite rightly, as not requiring meaningful contact with both parents.

The situation when the state intervenes to take children away from their biological parents is even worse.

Local authorities are aware that they frequently fail to protect children who are being viciously abused: Victoria Climbié, murdered by the couple charged with her care under the noses of social services officers who failed to identify what was going wrong, is a notorious example. Their response has been to expand the signs which might indicate abuse. But that expansion of the “tell-tale signs” has merely made social workers and others more likely to take children from their parents: it has not made them more likely to take away children who are actually suffering horrible maltreatment.

Agents of the state who want to take children from their parents have to prove to a judge that there will be “significant harm” to the child if he or she is left with his biological parents. Whether that test is effective in ensuring that children are removed only when it is absolutely necessary depends on how the notion of “significant harm” is understood. Once again, the problem is that the critical term has no meaningful definition in the legislation or in the hundreds of pages of advice which is meant to help interpret it.

Tags:

Political Correctness

Welfare State

Like this article? Share, save or print using the icons below:

Anonymous

November 14th, 2008
7:11 PM

Kent County Council uk has a mandatory policy 'all children aged under 10 must have aFGC(family group conference) prior to care proceedings - so why is this not happening and why are children of adoptable ages not being placed with family members first ? because they do not support gtandparents or family members with the same allowances as their fostercarers and want the children for adoption - 21 million pounds in ONE YEAR!!!

carol

July 7th, 2008
11:07 PM

i have just read your article which is sounding earily familiar i am a recovering alcoholic with 2 children 11 and 5 and am presently fighting an ongoing battle with social services whom despite stating i am a wonderful mother confirmed by their school, gp, health visitor and other proffesionals etc my children are suffering emotional abuse because i have been truthful and cannot say i will not touch another drink ever again.because of this they want my children to remain on the at risk register for ever and the only stress or emotional abuse that myself and my children have in our lives is them intruding into every aspect of our lives any advice would greatly received

Lady Portia

June 6th, 2008
11:06 AM

Best Interest of the Child was Hitler's slogan. Some social workers steal babies to order. Druggie babies are not wanted but cute healthy ones are.

Lady Portia

June 6th, 2008
11:06 AM

I was in similar situation in Ireland- and UK trained social worker announced he could find no reason to remove children- but that he had to prove to me - HE HAD THE POWER- so he would make me homeless, remove children and arrange electric shock therapy - as children were too strong willed and too intelligent. That is how crazy the system is. I now deal with many cases- some children removed with NO care order, some removed even when Justice Judge said NO. The judges have no power and SS are a law onto themselves. If you check them psychologically- you will find many have unresolvd inner issues of their own. 55% of social workers were abused as children- so cognitive projection is rife. I called Strasbourg today and there are sack fulls of cases sent there from UK recently. The one case I was dealing with was held up because the judge refused to give judgement on paper - so case was delayed. It is only when the press help us out that we bring justice to innocent people. Justice has to be seen, to be done

Shaun O'Connell

June 6th, 2008
8:06 AM

Whilst agreeing with the article generally, what the author fails t mention or may not be aware of are the follwoing issues; 1. Decisions in the High Court (sometimes) and very often in the Court of Appeal are made by case lawyers before the hearing in a document called a bench memorandum. Every case a case lawyer in the Court of Appeal and the bench memorandum is an advisory opnion for permission to Appeal. The Judges refuse to disclose it when requested and it means many Judges do not veen look at the case papers. 2. Whilst the occasional injustice may get reported (with the permission of the Judges) we have seen many cases of injustice rubber stamped by the same Judges who like t make themsleves seen as being fair by giving out one high profile case and then secretly stuffing further 500 cases. 3. If one tries to question or challenge methodlogy of Social workers, Court reporters, and experts often the Judge will protect the person concerned even intervening and answering the question themsleves! 4. Men and women can be victims of injustices but the children always suffer. For more information see www.familieslink.co.uk, www.elc.org.uk and www.aliance4justice.eu

Bill

June 2nd, 2008
10:06 PM

Good article. We don't want the situation as described by Tina in her comment, but the current situation cannot be allowed to continue. That social services and the courts do plenty of good work is not in doubt, but the issues raised in this article are real. This is sometime the government should be addressing urgently. This is not a party political issue, just a matter of needing good government to act in the best interests of children, parents and justice.

ThomasR

June 2nd, 2008
6:06 PM

Splendid article, thank you. Lifting that veil is vital. I don't think it is feasible to determine any person's best interests. Only the child in question could hope to do that. So this business will only be resolved when we decide instead to determine what a child's _wishes_ are. Although difficult, advice and assistance could be given, and opportunities created for him to change his mind later on. Of course this implies that we have to take children seriously, which is fundamental shift from where we are now.

Tina Trent

May 30th, 2008
5:05 PM

I cannot speak to the British system. However, in the States, every parent, no matter how despicably abusive (with some exceptions involving criminal incarceration), is given numerous chances to appeal every step in the process of determining "fitness." Money is no object because taxpayers must provide these negligent and abusive parents with representation. Consequently, children and the foster parents who wish to adopt them are routinely subjected to years of uncertainty and fear, no matter how severe or chronic or obvious the abuse delivered by the biological parent(s). I wonder that the author here has left out even passing acknowledgment that children are removed from homes because they are, in fact, endangered and abused. Operating from the viewpoint that all cases of removal are equally suspect and eliding custody cases arising from divorce with abuse cases doesn't create a compelling critique. But even in the case that the British system is indeed as skewed as the author suggests here, be very careful what you wish for.

Post your comment

More Features