Dad jailed for naming his son

[complexnumber]

There's got to be more to this story than meets the eye!

Quotes are from the DM (as usual)

'A father has been jailed at a secret court hearing for sendin a Facebook message to his grown-up son on his 21st birthday.

Garry Johnson, 46, breached a draconian gagging order which stops him publicly naming his son, Sam, whom he has brought up and who still lives with him.

The order silencing Mr Johnson ? which follows an acrimonious divorce eight years ago ? means he cannot mention either of his boys, 21-year-old Sam and Adam, 18, in public, even by congratulating them in a local newspaper announcement when they get engaged, married or have children in the future.'

Thanks for organising it so I didn't have to click on a DM linky!

This sounds extremely weird - can't be child protection if Sam lives with him.

I read this and I can't believe there isn't more to it. They handcuffed him to the hospital bed to stop him escaping after he had a heart attack, seriously!!! There has to be more they aren't telling us.

Of course there is more to it. You don't get orders like that unless there is a very very good reason.

A simple google search has brought up that the father has a massive hate and harrisment campaign going on with regard to his ex and her partner throwing about public accusations of sexual abuse criminal actions and other such things.naming them publishing there address ect.

No way is this a recent thing he must have been doing the same stuff years ago when the order was obtained.

Its quite likely got a lot to do with that.

There doesn't seem to be any reference to it apart from on the DM site, which always rings alarm bells for me.

Although i am a CP SW, i have a family situation going on that involves SS at the moment.

We are due to be seen in a private court, probably a few times. Whilst i agree with some of the need for hearings to be conducted in this way, many do not need to be. They opperate differently than an ordinary court.

This is part of the on-going campaign by the DM of closed courts, which, at times are needed and are the only right way for some cases to be handled.

However sometimes they are used, when they don't need to be and there is little, in fact no appeal against this.

The gagging order on this man needs to be more specific and should now not include his sons, as they are adults. For a man with his health condition to be put into the prison system, for a non violent/threatening offence, is unnecessary.

We cannot just blindly accept every decision, when children are no longer involved. This man was allowed residency of his sons and his sons support him, so it is only right that this order is now open to question.

This is the only subject that i agree with J Hemming on (i never thought that i would say that!). This man has a life time gagging order that has never been used on some of our most famous child killers or sex offenders, ridiculous, isn't the word.

Whatever the circumatances years ago that lead to the gagging order, surely the boys are now adults therefore its null & void?

If it is true (and we are talking Daily Fail reporting here so ....) then it has to be a malicious stir up by the ex otherwise who else would alert the authorities?

Huge shovel of salt needed here methinks.

Reading my dad's DM, it seems as if it's the Ex who's been accusing the dad of sexual abuse, etc, etc, and social services have investigated and said there's absolutely nothing wrong. It's the ex who's been doing the harrassment, not the dad. Both sons opted to live with the dad and not the ex and her new partner, so yes, I agree there's more than immediately apparent, but on the face of it, seems like the ex is the one with the problem.

Also, hearing the stories on here, of the reversed situation, the ex being male and them having residency, there does seem to be the ability to use the courts to harrass and intimidate, even without any proof, what so ever.

Apparently, the way the order was worded means the gag can last the dad's whole lifetime. Seems as if the specific wording that causes the order to stop once the boys are adult hasn't been included. Or something like that.

Not directly related to this but Sara Keays had a daughter fathered by Cecil Parkinson, who was a cabinet minister at the time.

The daughter is not allowed to be named in anything official either. Obviously, people know her name, but I saw a documentary about her and Sara Keays said that when she was little and in a little show (sort of thing a gym or ballet class put on) she was the only child who was not allowed to have her name printed in the programme, presumably because Parkinson's lawyers would have created merry hell, and the poor girl had been really upset.

That is just silly, they are adults able to make decisions for themselves, there has to b an error in that order

Going by the actual dads twitter and some of the other stuff that comes up about him.

His ex made allegations after the the children went to live with him this was a voluntary arrangement, these resulted in a family living with parent care order being sought by ss. So the kids remained with him but under the supervision of social services this continued until they were adults.

The father himself has accused the mothers partner of sexually abusing the children of being a pimp and a drug user amongst other things but again according to the dad despite repeated reporting by him no charges have ever been brought neither have any restrictions been placed on the mother with regard to the kids.

The dad has even published these accusations and published the couples address.by doing this and making these accusations publicly he is indirectly breaching his sons privacy because by saying such and such abused my child you are also saying my child was abused and making there identity known. Its ok for someone to choose to do that about themselves but not about other people.

If I was to make a guess I would go with the birthday message being the tip of the iceberg but the only one that he could be easily punished for as the child was actually named as opposed to just the ex and her partner.

Either way I think its a very interesting use of a order and purely from my perspective think that its quite a good way to stop a malicious campaign of harassment. But obviously my perspective is going to be different than a lot of people's.

The "child" wasn't named, though, an adult was.

They can not justify this order being a life long one. The sons now blame issues with the Mother's partner being the reason as to why they don't want contact with her.

It is up to the sons if they want to say what issues and if sexual abuse has taken place , it is their right to not have to speak about this, even to protect their father from prison.

Until i worked in CP, i wouldn't have believed that a sex offence against a child could go unpunished, or even un investigated, but i see it happen frequently.

Ther seems to have been many reports which deemed the father suitable to have residency, which is what happened.

If his sons are supporting him now, then that should be enough to allow him to publically wish his sons a happy birthday, especially as they are choosing to live with him, as adults.

Any order made against a person who has residency of a child, should end when that child reaches 18. Any actions then taken should go through the criminal court.

Sorry I meant his child was named not the child.

And his children can apply to the family court to have that restriction removed.but I half expect that some aspect of that part of the order was to protect the ex.

Whether you like the DM or not, it has been running a campaign regarding transparency in The Court of Protection. The only court where you can be arrested and imprisoned with out a defence council or a trial.

The 'child' - now and adult has taken this to the press to highlight the issue.

There was another high profile one where a woman was disgusted with the care her elderly father was getting in a home and tried to remove him - and she was jailed too, for 11 months

Far too hush-hush and unaccountable powers in some quarters.

• 5 months imprisonment - just googe Wanda Maddocks.

TBH it's bloody frightening you can be spirited away like this.

There isn't a child, though, so an application cannot be made. The decision is final,even though,no longer relevent. The son is 21 years old.

That is the problem with the court of this type. There are times that this court is being used, but isn't needed to be and there is no redress against this, except to go to the press.

I do agree that there is a problem with secret courts but I do think cases involving contact and divorce shouldn't be public.

Its a really weird one because on one hand some things should be private but I do think to use it in the way they do is wrong.

But if any aspect of the order remains in force even if the child is now an adult an application can be made to remove it. The only time you can't is if the order has ceased to exist or its been ordered that you cannot make any more challenges but they usually only do that if your actions are seen as vexatious.

The problem seems to be the way that this order was written, parts of it are needed, so they will not remove it.

It was wrongly written, but you cannot appeal against that, in the closed court, as you would in a criminal one.

The whole set up is different and for some situations, it is wrongly used, especially by SS, who push for it.

He should not have had to return to that court and it should be deemed illegal to put a life time order on a parent. It should last until the child is 18, or 21 and then go to a criminal court, if any wrong doing occurs.

We do need an overhaul of how the closed court is used.

I also think that a family should be able to push for a hearing in a criminal court and appeal against what is heard in a closed court, should be transfered elsewhere.

It is a bug bare of mine that the CPS can refused to take up the case of sexual abuse/rape of/against a child, though. The same with physical abuse.

It's not just a family court though - the Court of Protection could hypothetically be used to section you and spirit you away if you were an outspoken opponent of the government etc too many spy films but the potential is there for abuse if it isn't an open and transparent system.

I think the court of protection is the one that unnerves me the most.

But I don't agree that family court orders should always run out when the child reaches 18 a fair few of my clients with lifetime none molestation orders covering them and their children would be placed in danger by that happening.

Sockreturningpixie then properly worded orders based on individual circumstances should be made, to cover cases such as yours.