The courts are corrupted and their is a bias by the courts that they accept by: Marcia Hamilton

There is nothing that you can do to the CAS corporation. The public doesn’t care and neither does any of our Government Officials. You will soon find out that the Government funds them through the Ministry of Children and Youth Services who will try to distant themselves about the CAS practices and will tell you the CAS is a private Corporation and any complaints should be directed to Children and Family Services Review Board and if you do file a complaint there you will find out that the board is a farce and has no authority to discipline the CAS or to force them to do nothing because all the Board can do is to ensure that CAS internal complaints review panel heard your complaint . The Cas ICRP(internal Compalints Review Panel) will let you know that they have no power to discipline any of their workers regardless of any rights violations or fraudulent acts committed by them. The whole process is a farce and useless. It is set up to fool you into thinking that you have an avenue to get justice with your concerns and complaints. The whole process leaves you ultimatley very frustrated with no resolution.

The courts are even worse. The courts are corrupted and their is a bias by the courts that they accept whatever the CAS states as fact even with their false allegations. The CAS has the power of the Government. One must ask themselves if they are a private organization and not affiliated with the Government , how could they have such powers to apprehend on allegations and use police to enforce the apprehensions which are often in violation of your rights. The society’s board members have implemented a plan to give them full success with getting temporary custody of your kids by fighting against you using mental health allegations and transiency.Judges hammer & Gavel photo: gavel gavel_side_md_clr.gif

The use of mental health, is often successful because most of the families who are fighting against such allegations are not able to pay for their own psychological evaluations and thus leaving you at the mercy of these corrupted fiends who will then select the psychiatrist to do the assessment and often the psychologist or psychiatrists who are chosen are long term consultants of the CAS and will often provide a biased assessment to the courts full of lies in favour of the society and they will never go against the ones who are paying them.

The issue of transiency is really a violation of your charter of rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms under mobility of citizens, every citizen has a right to move to take up residence in any province for whatever purpose but the CAS wants to curtail your rights to move as you please, wake up, they are taking away your rights but no one will help you because no one cares and even if you know your rights it has no value to you if you have no money to launch a suit against these evil people and even if you file yourself, they will exhaust you financially because they will drag it out for years. 11825027_1046650202014014_4490688931628247504_n

The only way to defeat them is for you to keep records of everything you do for your children, plan of care meetings, visits, court records, get outside agencies to support you and your family for the extra eyes on the case if not they will bury you. The whole family court system is a farce.

There is no justice there and anything CAS tells you or signs consents to are lies and you will see it in the end, God help anyone who comes into contact with these people for any reason, even if they leave they will never let you go and they will be back in the future. They gather history and use it against you whether it is voluntary or non-voluntary history is still the same and has the same negative weight against you in court in an apprehension hearing.


Remember that there is a gender bias and many fathers do not win the first time through the courts

First and foremost, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER interrupt or argue with the Judge! You can respectfully disagree with him, but be careful and tactful about it. His decision is final for all practical purposes, so you DON’T want to tick him off!

Never interrupt the opposing party. Wait your turn. Don’t use gestures, facial expressions, or other distractions when the opposing party lies. You expect them to lie, that is why you are proving everything. If they are saying that you are violent or a villain with a short temper, you need to show otherwise instead of taking the bait. Attorneys, especially, use inflammatory language and gross exaggerations. Expect it, and stay calm. Judges are used to the exaggerations, and will carefully watch your reactions to form their own opinions.

Write down exactly what you want to say in advance. You can count on being nervous and forgetting half of what you want to say. Practice this and make sure it takes less than 4 minutes. Don’t be afraid to read your statement to the judge. He understands that you are nervous.Walking photo 12a.gif

Be precise and succinct. Don’t say “she has denied visitation many times.” Say “she denied visitation on these dates, resulting in the loss of X days of time with my children and causing serious detriment to the healthy relationship between father and child”. (See Tips on Keeping Documentation). A good way of organizing your statements is to say what occurred, what resulted, and how that helped or hurt the children. Remember, the children are the Judge’s focus in divorce court. Your “rights” don’t mean squat to him.

You can’t win a he says, she says battle. Make no allegations or accusations you can’t back up with hard evidence. Witnesses are OK, but hard evidence (such as school records, medical records, written correspondence, etc.) is much better. (See Gaining Access to Your Child’s Report Cards and Accessing Your Child’s Medical Records). The only exception to this is when they make false allegations, which you must fight whether you have evidence or not.

While the other side is presenting their case, keep a list of points/topics that they bring up that aren’t already a part of your case. Then make sure to ADD them into your case somewhere along the line. If you don’t respond or deny an allegation, the other side will argue (and the Judge will have no choice but to agree) that their accusation/evidence was not even disputed. I have used the argument in court before that “This was a blatant attempt by the opposition to distract the court from the true focus of this hearing, which is the children [in this case it was the children’s education], and I will not waste time on this issue other than to say the allegation is completely untrue.” (At the time I made that response I was being represented by an attorney. He liked that argument and included it in his own statements).

Remember that there is a gender bias and many fathers do not win the first time through the courts. Bide your time, save PAS101your money, and don’t jump before you are ready. If you don’t have the hard evidence you need to win, then you probably are wasting your time and money. Waiting until you are ready is tough, but better for both you and the kids than a prolonged court battle with many repeat engagements.

All of this will be moot if you don’t know what you are doing. You need to read the applicable statutes, court rules, and case histories. You need to know when to object when the opposing attorney tries to introduce hearsay as evidence, or violates other rules of evidence. Spend as much time as possible researching in the law library and observing other cases. This will not make you an attorney, but will help you avoid some of the most common and blatant errors. If you forget to provide a bench copy of your affidavit, or fail to comply with all of the rules of evidence, for example, then the judge probably will not be willing to look at it in the courtroom. Simple misunderstandings like that are common in pro se cases, and can cost you the case no matter how much evidence you have or how well-founded your case is.Shave, get a hair cut, and wear presentable clothing! For men this means a business suit. For women, you need to be businesslike and presentable. Think of a bank manager. I once had a judge ask me who I was representing when I approached the bench. He just assumed I was an attorney. By dressing appropriately, you both get respect and show respect for the court and the judge. You want to differentiate yourselves from the real scumbags these judges have to deal with on a daily basis.


Social workers under scrutiny as parents capture sessions on camera

Recording on mobile phone
Recording meetings and visits can address the imbalance of power that parents often feel in care proceedings. Photograph: Sarah Lee for the Guardian

This is just a few seconds from a recording made covertly by a mother who was at risk of losing her newborn baby to local authority care. It was presented in court and contradicted the foster carer’s own assertion that she had been rudely attacked by the mother and had responded in a mild fashion.

The woman had no option but to live in the mother-and-baby placement provided by Medway council children’s services if she was to stand any chance of keeping her child. She had already protested to social workers that the foster carer was unsuitable. When nothing changed she began covertly recording the woman’s outbursts to in an attempt to prove the level of abuse she was facing. Judge Mary Lazarus said in her published judgment this month that “having listened to the recording, the mother was calmly and fairly meekly pointing out that the conversation was noisy for the baby”.

Commenting on the case, Andrew Pack, a local authority solicitor in the south-east of England and a blogger on legal matters writes, “not only had the foster carer shouted at the mother and racially abused her, but she lied about it in her notes and made up an allegation that it had been the mother who behaved badly towards her.”

The Health and Care Professions Council has just suspended a social worker in Derby for lying to colleagues about a woman she falsely alleged had threatened to burn down her house with her children inside. The children were removed after an emergency hearing, with the mother given no opportunity to hear or challenge the evidence. In another case last year, an Essex county council social worker wasstruck off for creating a false statutory assessment for a child’s grandmother to provide care, which was later presented in court.

Distortions, dishonesty and mistrust are leading to an increasing number of parents opting to film or record – either overtly or covertly – their meetings with foster carers or child protection social workers. Annie Johnson, who has extensive experience of care proceedings after suffering a mental breakdown, explains how things can go wrong. “You’ve perhaps asked for help, you’re struggling with a child’s behaviour or with an abusive partner, and then [social workers] come out and start asking you how often you wash your towels, they look in your fridge, and at any point during these interactions you can say something and it’s taken the wrong way, and you only find out later when it’s written in a report.”

Because of her experience, Johnson (not her real name) will now only agree to see a social worker if another person is present. “That’s for my safety so that someone else can testify as to what did happen,” she says. The various meetings and reviews that parents attend as care proceedings progress should be formally and openly recorded, she believes “because in those interactions, as a parent, you’re in a state of terror.

“There’s at least 20 other people there including police, social workers, teachers: half of them you know, half you don’t, there’s a lot of legalese and words you’ve never heard before, and lots of very overbearing professionals stating their case.”

Minutes of meetings are taken but Johnson believes that parents cannot rely on their view being reflected. “What I’ve said in the past has been twisted to help the local authority’s case. You just cannot win,” she says.

Rebecca Carr-Hopkins, an independent social worker, has some sympathy with this view. “I’ve been to meetings and had the minutes back and thought that bore no relation to the meeting I was in,” she concurs. And Lucy Reed, a barrister who recently co-founded the Transparency Project to increase understanding of the family courts, says that while there can be challenges to the authenticity of a parent’s recordings which can be selectively edited to present a particular version of events, there can clearly also be evidential problems in social workers’ common practice of taking a handwritten note – that is sometimes later destroyed– and then entering a final version into a computer system perhaps a week later. “In truth, neither is a perfect record,” says Reed.

So how do social workers react when a parent pulls out a smartphone and says that they’re now on candid camera?

“There’s a great deal of suspicion,” says Pack. “A social worker will tend to get straight on the phone to their [council] lawyer saying a parent wants to [record], or a parent has done it, and I don’t want it.”

Although there is nothing in law to say a parent can’t record their social worker or needs official permission, up until a couple of years ago a council solicitor would write to the parents’ lawyers and say “this is unreasonable, we are not able to go ahead with the assessment on this basis, and we are now regarding you the parents as being uncooperative,” says Pack. With the stakes so high, the parents’ lawyers would usually advise them to stop. But attitudes are changing. In a number of police forces in the UK, bodycams are now worn as a matter of routine following smartphone footage taken of law enforcers assaulting citizens. Pack’s advice to his council social work teams today is phlegmatic: they need to understand that recording daily life is now normal in society, and get on with their job.

It can be instructive for professionals to consider matters from the point of view of a parent, he suggests. “You don’t know at the start of the relationship whether you have a good social worker or a bad one, and you won’t know until you see the report they write.”

Social workers have told him that they feel awkward speaking on camera, worry their words might be taken out of context and feel as if being recorded creates an imbalance of power. “One of the things I say in response is that this is exactly what a parent feels – awkward, disempowered, that things will be used in evidence against them, and for exactly those reasons, recording can be an equaliser,” says Pack. “If you’re not going to say anything in those meetings that you will be ashamed of a judge hearing, then you’ve got nothing to worry about.”

Andrew Webb, former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and the director of children’s services for Stockport council, agrees. “Professionals’ behaviour should be good enough to be filmed at any time,” he says. “We’ve known for a very long time that the best thing we can do to protect people in institutions is to be very, very open.

“It does feel threatening; that’s the feedback I’ve had [from social workers]. But I think we should deal with the fact that [staff] feel threatened, not refuse to do it.”

Webb’s main concern, which relates to covert recording, is less to do with exposing poor practice – “because I’d be very pleased if poor practice was exposed” – and more about parents posting material on hate websites that list social workers by name. “We’ve experienced that in this local authority on a number of occasions. It’s a worry.”

Recording case conferences, assessments and visits as a matter of course can be viewed as helpful rather than threatening, suggests Carr-Hopkins. She has always recorded her meetings with parents, who tend to like the fact that there is a verifiable record of what was said. “It allows them to feel safer,” she explains – which means the relationship is more trusting from the off.

There’s an important professional benefit too, she adds. “I know what people have said rather than what I think they’ve said. And you become a better interviewer if you listen to yourself.”

Courts won’t want to plough through endless hours of fuzzy audio or film footage. But Reed says she has no objection in principle to trying to rely on such recordings if she thinks they provide valuable evidence in a client’s case.

The problem highlighted by parents’ insistence on recording social workers goes far deeper, however, than simply the issue of whether professionals lie on oath in the family courts, says Reed. “It’s about a parent’s perception of the dynamic when they see social workers come into their lives on the one hand to support them, but who at the same time are busy assessing their parenting abilities and gathering evidence that’s used to apply for a child’s permanent removal into local authority care.

“And the parents are right – that is what’s happening. So you have inbuilt mistrust of a system, and it comes out as ‘the social worker is lying.’”

Recording meetings – openly or covertly – is becoming increasingly common. But is this a mark of distrust and suspicion or a useful tool?

114 files missing from ‘Westminster pedophile ring’ dossier, Home Office admits/At least 40 UK politicians complicit in alleged Westminster ‘pedophile ring’ – report

A general view shows the headquarters of Britain's Home Office in central London (Reuters/Alessia Pierdomenico)
The UK Home Office has admitted that it can’t find 114 “potentially relevant files” relating to the pedophile scandal engulfing Westminster, in which there are allegations that senior political figures were involved in, or covered up, child sex abuse.

The lost files were part of a dossier compiled in the 1980s by the now deceased Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens and which was passed to the then-Home Secretary Leon Brittan, British media reports.

Mr. Dickens, who died in 1995, told his family that he had details in the dossier that would “blow the lid off” the lives of powerful and famous child abusers.

At least 40 UK politicians complicit in alleged Westminster ‘pedophile ring’ – report

Lord Brittan has confirmed that he received a “substantial bundle of papers” from Dickens in 1983 when he was Home Secretary, and that he handed them all over to the relevant officials for further investigation.

A review by the Home Office found that information it received between 1979 and 1999 had been passed on to the relevant authorities. This fairly lengthy 20-year period would have included anything received from Lord Brittan in 1983.

Home Office under fire over ‘lost’ dossier on Westminster pedophiles

In a letter to Dickens at the time, Lord Brittan suggested his information would be passed to the police, but according to the Guardian Scotland Yard says it has no record of any investigation into the allegations.

Mark Sedwill, the current permanent secretary to the Home Office, said that four new leads had been passed on to Scotland Yard and a spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said that “any relevant material that is submitted to us will be dealt with as appropriate.” The Met did not confirm if it had received any material, however.

But Sedwill also admitted that the Home Office had lost, destroyed or simply “not found” 114 potentially relevant files, the Telegraph reports.

Britain's Home Secretary Theresa May (Reuters/ndrew Winning)

In a letter to Keith Vaz, the chairman of the UK parliament’s home affairs select committee, Sedwill outlined the details of 2013 Home Office review in which he mentioned the 114 missing files.

Sedwill made it clear to Vaz that Dickens had submitted allegations of sexual offences over several years to a number of home secretaries, not just one dossier to Lord Brittan in 1983.

Sedwill also wrote to Prime Minister David Cameron on Saturday to announce that there would be a new investigation to see if the results of last year’s review “remain sound.”

According to Sedwill, a central Home Office database of 746,000 files stretching over the period 1979-99 had identified 527 files which could be relevant. From these, nine pieces of information about alleged child abuse were reported to the police and 114 files had gone missing or been destroyed.

This revelation has led to an immediate suspicion that there has been an attempt at a cover-up from inside Whitehall. A senior Tory MP and former children’s minister, Tim Loughton, has already accused the Home Office of trying to hide the facts.

The current Home Secretary, Theresa May, is under pressure to become involved and is expected to face questions in the House of Commons on Monday to explain what has happened to the missing files.

Vaz has also expressed deep concern about the sheer number of files that have gone missing.

“It is a huge amount of files about a very sensitive issue. How do we know such a precise figure? Somebody must have known that these files existed. We know the Home Office loses passports and a couple of files here and there, but 114 is quite a lot of files to lose. I think we need to answer this,” he said.

He also expressed frustration that May has not yet become involved in the affair.

“I am a little concerned at the absence of the Home Secretary from most of these deliberations. This is the Home Office and she is the Home Secretary.”

Loughton also said that to lose so many files “smacks of incompetence or, I fear, some degree of cover-up.”

Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show on Sunday, Lord Tebbitt, a former Conservative cabinet minister under Margaret Thatcher, said he believed there has been a cover-up because at the time people instinctively tried to protect the “system.”

“I think at the time most people would have thought that the establishment, the system, was to be protected, and if a few things had gone wrong here and there it was more important to protect the system than to delve too far into it. I think there may well have been [a cover-up]. But it was unconscious. It was the thing people did at that time,” Lord Tebbit said.

Labour MPs Simon Danczuk and Tom Watson are calling for an overarching Hillsborough-style inquiry in the matter, the Observer reports.

The Hillsborough disaster in the Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield in 1989 resulted in the deaths of 96 people.It later emerged there had been a widespread cover-up by the police, who blamed it on drunken Liverpool football supporters. A government inquiry did not get to the bottom of what happened, but eventually under pressure from relatives and other campaigning groups, in 2012 a second, deeper inquiry found that the deaths were mainly due to police incompetence.

“Only an overarching inquiry will get to the facts, everything else the government says or does on this is a diversion,” said Watson.

While Danczuk pointed out that until the government is seen to be taking the issue seriously, the public will think they are trying to hide something.

“The public will think these documents have gone missing because it helps protect the names of those identified in them. That is the conclusion that many will come to, and who can blame them,” he said.

The Palace of Westminster (Reuters / Kieran Doherty)
A whistleblower who kicked off UK police pedophile probe Operation Fernbridge believes as many as 40 British MPs and peers were involved in or turned a blind eye to child abuse.

Peter Mckelvie, a retired child protection team manager, who has spent more than 20 years compiling evidence of alleged child abuse by people in authority, believes ten current and former politicians are on the list and that there is enough evidence to arrest at least one senior politician, reports the Daily Telegraph.

MPs and peers from all three main political parties are on the list including Cyril Smith and Sir Peter Morrison, who are now dead.

McKelvie was behind bringing Peter Righton, a notorious pedophile, to justice when he worked for Hereford and Worcester child protection team and believes that up to 20 MPs and Lords should be investigated.

“I believe there are sufficient grounds to carry out a formal investigation into allegations of up to 20 MPs and Lords over the last three decades, some still alive and some dead. The list is there,” he said.

And in a letter to his local MP Tony Baldry last month, McKelvie suggested that a further 20 may be implicated in covering up child abuse.

Although he does not suggest that any of the public servants either MPs or Lords colluded with each other.

It was Tom Watson MP who first raised the issue of child abuse by MPs and peers at Prime Minister’s Questions in October 2012 as a result of information that McKelvie had passed to him.

Members of Parliament are seen attending a session of Parliament in the House of Commons (Reuters /UK Parliament via Reuters TV)

Watson spoke of “clear intelligence suggesting a powerful pedophile network linked to parliament and number 10.”

It was after Watson’s intervention that the Metropolitan Police began Operation Fernbridge, an ongoing investigation about alleged child abuse at the Elms Guest House in Barns, South London.

It is understood that a Tory MP abused a child under the age of 10 at the guesthouse in the 1980s, but the alleged victim has so far refused to give a sworn witness statement to police.

Earlier this week it emerged that a separate file on an alleged Westminster pedophile network, which had been put together by the now deceased MP Geofrey Dickens, mysteriously gone missing after he handed it to the then Home Secretary Lord Brittan in 1983.

Labor MP Simon Danczuk, along with six other MPs, has written to the Home Secretary Theresa May demanding a public inquiry into the missing dossier and the people who had been named in it.

Mrs May said she has not ruled out an inquiry after the police finish their investigations and Prime Minister Cameron also tried to give reassurance that the issue would not be swept under the carpet.

“I’ve asked the permanent secretary at the Home Office to do everything he can to find answers to all of these questions and to make sure we can reassure people about these events. Its right these investigations are made. We mustn’t do anything, of course, that could prejudice or prevent proper action by the police,” he said.

Separately it was reported Friday by the Telegraph that a senior Tory who is being investigated as part of Operation Fernbridge, was stopped by customs officials with child pornography in the 1980s but was never arrested.

Daveyone Familylawman World4Justice Campaign :2015

@MoJGovUK @lucyallan ~Lobby ~4~ Justice : 2015~ @CamCavendish @BD_Lawrence @MoJGovUK

Contact 10 Downing Street                                   Rt Hon Michael Gove MP


            Lucy Allan MP                                                                   Improving Child Protection

In 2012 Lucy fronted a media campaign highlighting flaws in the UK child protection system. This followed her own family’s experience of the system.

During a visit to a GP, to seek help with symptoms of depression, Lucy said she was worried about the impact on her son. Without meeting her son, a newly qualified locum, decided that the family might benefit from social services input. Unwittingly, this well meaning act triggered a full scale child protection enquiry.

Despite medical professionals giving Lucy a clean bill of health and evidence from other professionals that Lucy’s son was happy and thriving, the Council set about trying to  build a case that her son was at risk of harm.

Alarmed by the Council’s determination to find their son had been at risk and the potential consequences for him, the family instructed solicitors. After a lengthy battle the Council finally conceded their son had not been at risk.

The experience gave Lucy insight into the way the system works in practice, the unchecked power of the State to intervene in family life, and the potentially devastating consequences for children and their families. The media campaign generated a huge response from families; inspired by their stories Lucy set up Family First.            Contact Your Own MP

Camilla Cavendish at The Times CEO Summit in 2011.Parliament-Justice-Times-cartoon

Camilla Cavendish at The Times CEO Summit in 2011.          Send a message to one/some or all of our MP’

As British politics becomes more presidential, the structure of Number 10 matters more and more. David Cameron values continuity, collegiality and calmness in his senior team and what is striking is how many of his team are staying on post-election.

The word coming out of Downing Street today is that Ed Llewellyn will remain as chief of staff in this parliament. But Llewellyn will also be the Prime Minister’s point person on the EU renegotiation, a hugely time consuming task. Number 10 is emphasising that the two deputy chiefs of staff, Craig Oliver and Kate Fall will be taking on more responsibilities to ensure the efficient running of the Cameron operation when Llewellyn is absent. MORE newspaper-montage

                                                     Lobby National & Local Press

Michael Mansfield QC: “I Am Than More Willing To Consider Chairing An Inquiry into Child Abuse.”

Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon   ((CONTACT))

At last! Victory on secret courts: Rulings in family cases to be made public after Mail campaign !


  • Family Court and Court of Protection judgements will now be made publicGreed
  • Expert witnesses, including social workers, are to be named
  • Councils applying to take children into care can no longer claim anonymity
  • New rules laid down by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby
  • Daily Mail has exposed a series of major scandals over the past year
  • These have resulted from justice being conducted behind closed doors

Landmark ruling: President of the Family Division Sir James Munby

Decisions by secret courts that can lead to children being taken from their parents or old people forced into care homes are finally to be opened up to public scrutiny.

Under rules set out yesterday, future judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must be made public except in cases where there is a clear reason to dictate they should not be.

superhero-537x368Councils applying to take children into care or to take control of the lives of the old and sick can no longer hide behind a cloak of anonymity.

Expert witnesses, including social workers, should also be named in public, as should anyone found responsible for wrongdoing.

The landmark changes break a silence that has surrounded family justice for nearly 100 years.

They also mark a major victory for the Daily Mail which has campaigned against secret courts and exposed a series of major scandals over the past year resulting from justice being conducted behind closed doors.

The new rules, laid down by the most senior family judge, President of the Family Division Sir James Munby, say that judgments in the family courts and the Court of Protection must always be publicised unless there are ‘compelling reasons’ why not.

Only children and adults caught up in disputes and members of their families should be protected by anonymity.

The guidelines warn that secrecy prevents families who have been involved in cases from complaining when they believe they have suffered injustice.

Sir James said in guidance sent to judges that there would be ‘an immediate and significant change in practice in relation to the publication of judgments in family courts and the Court of Protection’.

The High Court ruled the woman should not be told of social workers plans to take her baby after birth

How the rules have changed

He added: ‘In both courts there is a need for greater transparency in order to improve public understanding of the court process and confidence in the court system.

‘At present too few judgments are made available to the public, which has a legitimate interest in being able to read what is being done by judges in its name.’

The Mail’s campaign revealed last April that the Court of Protection – set up by the last Labour government to deal with the affairs of those too ill to make decisions for themselves – had jailed a woman in secret and without publishing any record.

A Birmingham judge imprisoned Wanda Maddocks, 50, for contempt of court for trying to get her father out of a care home where he had been ordered to stay.

Miss Maddocks had no lawyer to represent her, and no judgment was published. She served six weeks.

The Mail's campaign

Everything that happened to the mother, Alessandra Pacchieri, was decided by the courts in secret.

In the same month we disclosed the case of the ‘irreproachable’ father who spent 12 years and £100,000 in the family courts trying to win the right to see his 14-year-old daughter – and who still has not won his case for access.

Currently, secrecy in the family courts – which can remove children from dangerous parents, order them to be adopted, and decide on their custody – is governed by 1960 law.

This makes it contempt of court to discuss a case when no judgment has been published, a crime punishable by two years in prison. Successive attempts to open up the courts have been thwarted.


In 2006, Labour Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer blocked a law that would have allowed more light in because state-subsidised charities such as the NSPCC and the National Children’s Bureau opposed the idea.

Labour’s 2005 Mental Capacity Act, pushed through by Lord Falconer, set up the Court of Protection. Its rules say ‘the general rule is that a hearing is to be held in private’.

Sir James Munby, who took over a year ago as President of the Family Division, which includes responsibility for both courts, said his new guidance would take effect from February 3.

He added that further guidance and formal legal practice directions will follow. There may yet be full Parliamentary legislation, although Sir James said this is ‘unlikely in the near future.’

He said that current rules are ‘inappropriate where family members wish to discuss their experiences in public, identifying themselves and making use of the judgement.

‘Equally, they may be inappropriate in cases where findings have been made against a person and the court concludes it is in the public interest for that person to be identified.’ View other’s comments ((HERE))


Lisa Shin for NM House Rep: District 43

Let's Fight Together for our Kids and the American Dream!

Signs of a Gay Husband by Debra Sutton

Identifying Closeted Gay Husband Behaviors

Annetta Powell, Your Attraction Marketing, Network Marketing and Social Media Marketing coach.

Making Peace With Your Past!

Let Go & Live Life!

The Divorce Artist

Navigating divorce is an art.

The PPJ Gazette

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

The Male Factor

#1 Site For Research on Men and Boys

Word From The Street

Jonah Reuben's weblog

CONFIRMED BY ILL. SUPREME COURT-- YOU ARE VIEWING THE MOST DANGEROUS BLOG IN ILLINOIS. This blog warranted a 3 year suspension by the ARDC/Jerome Larkin! Mottos: "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". Justice Louis Brandeis ; "If the truth can destroy something, then it deserves to be destroyed" Carl Sagan; "Justice is Truth in Action" Benjamin Disraeli. Illinois uses the ARDC to quash dissenting attorney activist blogs ; "The freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic Governments" -- (1776-First Amendment preamble adopted by 8 US colonies)

We believe in excellence.

Telenet Global Logistics Blog



Shining the light on Indigenous life.

BLM Abuse News blog

Up-to-date news and expert insight into the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and other abuse claims related matters

Saint Ann's Community Service

changing our world through service

Common Good

The Center for Public Service Law blog provides public service law news, events, trainings, jobs, and opportunities for the UW School of Law's community

Becoming a Different Kind of Professional

A Notre Dame Law Careers Blog By: Katelynn McBride Barbosa

Socitm blog

Read all the latest Socitm blog posts which include GDPR, digital thinking, and articles relating to local government across the UK