#BBCQT @bbcqt from North London.5th November ~ @bbcquestiontime

QT7001a 10403121_835942029799859_2612468037682536976_n

05/11/2015 Thursday 22:35

David Dimbleby presents topical debate from North London.

11027927_10153487578267118_1668095767224319335_n

“I have concluded that it is now impossible to defend a system from accusations of bias and discrimination if it operates behind closed doors. Even as Minister for Family Justice, I find the rules make it hard for me to establish what is going on.

It is my job to reassure Parliament that the family court system is working properly. But how can I know? I can’t read newspaper reports of cases; I can’t just go and sit at the back of the court, as I can – and do – in magistrates’ courts. And how can MPs hold me to account for a system they cannot see? Parliamentary accountability for the family courts is wholly theoretical while the system remains closed. How can the influential Constitutional Affairs Select Committee conduct investigations into its workings?

And when we debate family law in Parliament, neither MP’s nor Ministers can really know what we are talking about. We have to legislate in the dark”. https://ukfathers.wordpress.com/…/join-us-so-we-can-demand…/Chris Grayling Parental Involvementhttp://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/chrisgraylingparentalinv… The amendments to the Children’s Act which were introduced by the Children & Families Act do not help the parents or the children the family courts are supposed to best serve. I think it’s very sad successive governments even those who pledged to end the misery of the family courts when they were in opposition have failed to provide families with a family justice system they can trust & respect. Once the father is eliminated, the state functionally replaces him as protector and provider. By removing the father, the state also creates a host of problems for itself to solve: child poverty, child abuse, juvenile crime, and other problems associated with single-parent homes. In this way, the divorce machinery is self-perpetuating and self-expanding. Involuntary divorce is a marvelous tool that allows for the infinite expansion of government power

.http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/divorceasrevolutionbyste… One ‘problem family’ costs £250,000 a year

http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/oneproblemfamilycosts250… Family breakdown ‘could cost taxpayers £46bn

http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/familybreakdowncouldcost… Third of family break-up children lose contact with fathers

http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/thirdoffamilybreakupchil… A Fathers role in a child’s life is a very important one

http://www.ukfamilylawreform.co.uk/afathersroleinachildslif…

UK Family Law Reform

UK Family Law Reform

V for Vendetta photo: V for Vendetta Parliament explosion vparliamentexplosion.jpg

Advertisements

@CBCNews ~ If you know of anyone with evidence of the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) criminality.

Canada Family Law Parental Alienation Justice Court

If you know of anyone with evidence of the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) criminality
This message is to notify you of an update on a specific brainsyntax posting you are following or the author invited you.The author or a subscriber to this page would like you to access or be aweare of the new content:

A group of us are submitting complaint to the international criminal court. If you know of anyone with strong? Evidence of Children’s Aid Society (CAS) criminality, they can submit as well.

Interested readers can reply directly by email or web.

Re: Hi Vincent, Is Nicole the victim here or the author? I would love to connect with her as my case is similar. Can you please forward my contact to her?

Access the originating page here 

Canada Family Law Parental Alienation Justice Court

@CBCNews Sometimes it takes a small voice with the proper information to build the foundation for such reform by: Dino Denicola

Canada Family Law Parental Alienation Justice CourtSometimes it takes a small voice with the proper information to build the foundation for such reform by: Dino Denicola

This message is to notify you of an update on a specific brainsyntax posting you are following or the author invited you.The author or a subscriber to this page would like you to access or be aweare of the new content:

Your information is nothing short of amazing and accurate, however the cause is not being dealt with. This in itself will continue to bring failure to any proper reform that as you have pointed out is necessary in the most desperate manner

Sometimes it takes a small voice with the proper information to build the foundation for such reform   Without it we are simply protesting the obvious shortcomings of an inadequate system

On July 16th of 1996

A major turnaround occurred

It led to the implementation of the FRO act and almost 200 being terminated under the family support plan At the time known as the FSP act

The allegations of Deadbeat dads became a thing of the past

It also started reform towards a unified endeavour for our children’s separated family

This has been interfered with by the cas and the ccas

Currently a focal point must be made

Efforts need to be put to the ombudsman investigating as well as human rights investigating such acts of discrimination that effect families as a whole

Dino

Access the originating page MORE

Bring Down Child Support Services in 2015!

The entire family law industry is corrupt at every level.

The entire family law industry is corrupt at every level. It is premised on your disagreement with one another. Parents should have a natural, presumptive right to their children that should only be condemned by the state through the due process of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a mother or a father should not have the freedom to do as they please with them. Neither parent should have power over or be able to enforce control upon the other at anytime regardless of race, religion, sex, creed, national origin or any other supposedly protected class of citizenry. Its time we take lawyers’ and judges’ away from the family table and require the same or more standards we apply to those accused of crimes. Why does one man or one woman get to decide the fate of entire families without any legal premise or predicate? Why are some people not even allowed to review the evidence brought against them? Why is family law the largest money maker for attorneys at-large??? These are the questions we should ask.

CSAR

Greed

Top judge pledges to end culture of secrecy at family courts………

Sir James Munby: ‘Re B-S ruling has not changed the law on adoption’

One of England’s most senior judges has pledged to expose family courts to the “glare of publicity” to avoid miscarriages of justice and restore public confidence MORE

Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said the public had a right to know “what is being done in their name” and called for the courts to adapt to the internet era

Sir James Mumby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, says family courts must be open to the ‘glare of publicity’ Photo: BRIAN SMITH FOR THE TELEGRAPH By , Senior Political Correspondent

One of England’s most senior judges has pledged to expose family courts to the “glare of publicity” to avoid miscarriages of justice and restore public confidence.

Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said parents of children taken into care must no longer be gagged by the courts and journalists should be allowed to report on proceedings.

He said that in the absence of the death penalty, removing a child from their parents is one of the most “drastic” actions a judge can take consequences that can last a lifetime.

In a speech to the Society of Editors in London, he said that judges must accept that “human justice is inevitably fallible” and mistakes are made.

He said that both the family courts, which deal with divorce cases and adoption, and the Court of Protection, which deals with decisions about people who lack the mental capacity to make their own decisions, must be more transparent.

Sir James said he wants to make the courts “open to the world”. He said: “It must never be forgotten that orders of the kind that family judges are invited to make in public law proceedings are amongst the most drastic that any judge is empowered to make.

“We strive to avoid miscarriages of justice, but human justice is inevitably fallible. We must have the humility to recognise that public debate, and the jealous vigilance of an informed media, have an important part to play.

“It is vitally important, if the administration of justice is to be promoted and public confidence in the courts maintained, that justice be administered in public.”

His comments come after controversy over a series of cases where the names of social workers, expert witnesses and councils are kept secret. Parents who have their children taken away from them have also been subject to draconian “gagging” orders.

Sir James said that parents should be free to speak out. He said: “It is important in a free society that parents who feel aggrieved at their experiences of the family justice system should be able to express their views publicly about what they conceive to be the failings on the part of individual judges or failings in the judicial system. And the same goes, of course, for criticism of local authorities and others.”

He said judges should be prepared to accept criticism of their decisions. “If there is no basis for injuncting a story expressed in the temperate or scholarly language of a legal periodical or the broadsheet press, there can be no basis for injuncting the same story just because it is expressed in the more robust, colourful or intemperate language of the tabloid press or even in language which is crude, insulting and vulgar.

“A much more robust view must be taken today than previously of what ought rightly to be allowed to pass as permissible criticism. Society is more tolerant today of strong or even offensive language.”

Under a series of reforms, Sir James plans to make judgments available to the public and to open up the courts to reporters. Journalists could be given greater access to court documents.

He said: “We must be open to the world – much more open than at present – in what we do both in the family courts and the Courts of Protection.”

President of the family division at the High Court has emphasised ‘with as much force as possible’ that adoption law remains the same MORE

judgesLords

Photo: Rex Features

The most senior judge in the family courts, Sir James Munby, has reiterated that a recent ruling has not changed the law on adoption.

In a court judgement, published today, the president of the family division at the High Court stated: “I wish to emphasise, with as much force as possible, that Re B-S was not intended to change and has not changed the law.

“Where adoption is in the child’s best interests, local authorities must not shy away from seeking, nor courts from making, care orders with a plan for adoption, placement orders and adoption orders.”

The judgement in Re B-S was directed at practice, rather than law, Munby emphasised.

Munby used the opportunity to address concerns from within the sector that the judgement, handed out in 2013, was being used as an opportunity to criticise social workers and local authorities.

10403121_835942029799859_2612468037682536976_nMyths and misconceptions

While they cannot evaluate the prevalence or validity of these concerns on practice, “they plainly need to be addressed, for they are all founded on myths and misconceptions which need to be run to ground and laid to rest,” he said.

The Re B-S judgement criticised poor analysis and reasoning being put forward regularly in adoption cases, and was attributed as the cause of a sudden drop in placement orders this year, which led the Adoption Leadership Board to publish a “mythbusting” guide about the judgement last month. Munby stressed that this guide was not endorsed by the judiciary.

He stated: “Re B-s does not require the further forensic pursuit of options which, having been properly evaluated, typically at an early stage in the proceedings, can legitimately be discarded as not being realistic.

“Re B-S does not require that every conceivable option on the spectrum that runs between ‘no order’ and ‘adoption’ has to be canvassed and bottomed out with reasons in the evidence and judgment in every single case.”

Clarifying adoption concerns

Munby also used the judgement to address concerns that adoption applications must now surmount ‘a much higher hurdle’.

Alexandra Conroy Harris, a legal consultant for the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, believes this will help clear up “the great deal of uncertainty” that has surrounded adoption for several months.

She said: “This judgement will help both courts and local authorities when making decisions regarding the long term future of these children.

“We support the President’s efforts to improve the standards of evidence and analysis in all cases involving decisions about a child’s future, and welcome the clarification that adoption should be properly considered as an option for those children.”

1604457_1559605090951928_6045777466083864304_n

Parents lose baby in ‘miscarriage of justice’ @GMB @ITVLorraine @itvthismorning @itvpresscentre @itvlondon @itvnews @ITV @replies @loosewomen

Guys…. Please be constructive as I like Marilyn Stowe Family Law & Divorce Blog and we really need her on side….
Help educate more people about what is really going on, hit the comments, but remember… You are your children’s voice, so be constructive…
Forced Adoption Exposed
WE must Halt The Adoption Drive and get the public inquiry 

@itvthismorning ENDORCES FORCED ADOPTION

fostering and adoptionI got up very very early this morning to travel down to the ITV studios on London’s South Bank for an appearance on the Good Morning Britain sofa, with presenters Ben Shephard and Kate Garraway. Whole Article

The topic under discussion was the shocking case of Karrissa Cox and her boyfriend Richard Carter. In an understandably controversial case, this couple’s baby had been taken into care and adopted against their wishes because they were suspected of cruelty towards the infant. Doctors found bruising and bone fractures, only for it to later emerge that the baby in fact had the bone disorder rickets, and bruised more easily than other babies due to a blood condition.

But tragically for this young couple, by the time they were acquitted of cruelty in a criminal trial, their baby had already been adopted. This may seem extraordinary – incomprehensible even, and of course I do not know the full facts of the case. But I would imagine that the family courts and judges who oversaw the adoption genuinely believed there was no reason to doubt the medical evidence then available.

The family courts must be satisfied that ‘nothing else will do’ when they order something as drastic as adoption and presumably they were in this case.

Great emphasis is placed these days on speedy resolution of care, adoption and fostering cases in the family courts. Delay is not seen as in the best interests of the child. Good intentions lie behind this pressure to move quickly.

Social workers and medical staff are also under enormous pressure to pick up on and respond to any indications of abuse. No one wants another Baby P.

Equally, I imagine, situations like the one facing this young couple were not foreseen. It’s an awful set of circumstances and it is hard to see a way forward for them. By its very nature adoption is intended to be final, a mark of permanence and stability in a needy child’s life. It is rare indeed for adoptions to be overturned.

As I told the viewers this morning, there is no question that this was a catastrophic miscarriage of justice. What lay behind it? There was the initial misdiagnosis of course, and as we see in the interesting examination of the medical evidence provided by Garden Court Chambers here, one contributory factor to that may have been a failure to consider the possibility of vitamin D deficiency. It’s clear also that there was too much reliance on one medical expert from the outset and an equally obvious reluctance on the part of the prosecution to consider the possibility that their expert might be wrong until no less than three and a half years had passed.

1497160_584999621581474_61535289_nThe spectre of legal aid rears its ugly head here too: these unfortunate parents were unable to fight the adoption or consult other medical experts because they were refused funding.

Should the adoption order be set aside? Public policy suggests not. The child’s welfare is paramount. If the baby has been settled with the adoptive parents for several years, the emotional harminflicted by removing him or her now could be considerable. (We are not allowed to know the child’s gender by court order).

I am reminded of the 2009 case involving a Mr and Mrs Webster. The couple in question lost three children to adoption after they were suspected of deliberately injuring one. When medical exonerated them, the parents applied to have the adoption orders set aside and their children returned to them. They were unsuccessful. In a Court of Appeal ruling, former President of the Family Division Lord Justice Wall declared:

“…however heartbreaking it may be for Mr and Mrs Webster, those orders must stand.”

An unhappy precedent. Lord Justice Wilson – now Lord Wilson of the Supreme Court – added thistelling observation to the judgement:

“I have spent a professional life-time working in our family justice system. With reservations, I remain reasonably content with the way in which it usually operates and I am proud to have a role in it. This application, however, makes me profoundly uncomfortable.”

Marilyn Stowe

The senior partner at Stowe Family Law, Marilyn Stowe is one of Britain’s best known divorce lawyers with clients throughout the country, in Europe, the Far East and the USA.

View more from this author

This Morn