Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
OP posts:
mathanxiety · 31/08/2011 04:06

Patience Jimmy, there are proper routes for these things to be handled through. And in the meantime the public can go about its business with the courts confident in the knowledge that not all psychologists and judges are corrupt.

Original poster
johnhemming · 31/08/2011 05:59

I have identified psychologists that the local authorities don't like being appointed. There are some very good psychologists.

OP posts:
Spero · 31/08/2011 07:58

Brilliant JH we are getting somewhere. You agree that fees aren't withheld unless expert agrees, they just won't be instructed again.

Sorry, one more pesky question, what a pain I am but I do think this is important for any worried parents out there who might be reading this - do you accept that parents often get the opportunity to instruct experts and their fees are paid by the tax payer via their publicly funded certificate? So experts can do their job free of fear, confident that they will still get work even without demonstrating loyalty to LA.

In fact those of us who act for parents really like those kind of experts. Could you send me the names of those you know to have been blacklisted by LAs? It would be great to instruct them in other cases when I act for parents.

Original poster
johnhemming · 31/08/2011 08:20

Normally experts are jointly appointed by all parties.

I am quite happy to tell people offline who the reliable experts are - in fact we do that.

OP posts:
Spero · 31/08/2011 08:42

JH you are just going to have to take my word for it that I routinely apply for and quite often get permission to instruct an expert which is paid on my clients publicly funded certificate. Of course, the other parties are allowed to see the Letter of instruction and comment on it. But you cannot seriously argue that such an expert will report only as LA wishes - he or she will answer the questions which I draft.

You can send me a private message with the names of the experts who so defy the LA. Very much looking forward to such useful info.

And btw, can you answer my second question about whether you agree with IJ on that point about routine withholding of evidence?

I now have to travel to court with broken wheely bag which has been destroyed by the weight of all the disclosed evidence in this case. I shudder to think how much paperwork there would be if evil LA actually disclosed all its evidence.

thehappyprince · 31/08/2011 19:16

Oh my god, I'm beginning to think you may have got the last word Spero! If so, no mean feat when engaging (or attempting to engage...) with jh

Original poster
johnhemming · 31/08/2011 22:23

I did say "offline". I also said I am not going to go into what I agree with or disagree with about what other people say.

OP posts:
Spero · 01/09/2011 06:42

Happy prince, I am still gunning for the last word.

JH What's wrong with you sharing with me via private message some names of experts you consider do a really good job for parents? I am always keen to expand my data base of reliable expert witnesses as the good ones are sometimes too busy to help within my timescales.

Let me rephrase my question. Do YOU believe that evidence is routinely withheld from parents in care proceedings? I am sure you have said this in the past. If I am wrong in this belief, please let me know.

And if you are too busy and important to engage in debate on the threads YOU start, then don't start anymore.

Original poster
johnhemming · 01/09/2011 07:30

Do YOU believe that evidence is routinely withheld from parents in care proceedings?

A few years ago a social worker came to me and explained how he personally had experienced parents' solicitors working with the local authority to undermine the parents' case.

I am dealing with two cases at the moment where parents' solicitors have been working against the interests of their clients.

I am sure that at times information is kept from parents. One of the cases I am dealing with is one where the solicitor is refusing to give the file to the parent.

There are good solicitors as well.

I have encountered situations where there has been a refusal to give a transcript of the judgment (which was dealt with on the basis of an appeal on the basis of no judgment).

All sorts of things have gone wrong, but it is important to remember that I tend to see the cases where people believe that something has gone wrong.

OP posts:
Spero · 01/09/2011 08:15

The important thing to note is your comment 'I tend to see the cases where people BELIEVE something has gone wrong'

I sometimes have to give my clients hard advice. Such as 'staying with your violent and drug addicted partner/lying about your own drug use/ saying to me that you are going to have the social worker raped and killed is going to damage your chances of having your children back. Please think carefully about your behaviour'.

No doubt these parents might see my advice as unwelcome if they lack insight into their own behaviour. I have been the subject of complaints from parents when I have challenged them.

but that is not the same as actively conspiring with a LA to snatch their children.

Why would I do that JH? why would any lawyer paid by the state to represent parents do that? to quote Wall LJ again, what's in it for me? Do I get a financial kick back for every baby I help to snatch?

Do you appreciate the danger in simply accepting at face value what you are told by one side of the story?

Spero · 01/09/2011 08:18

Btw no judge would refuse a transcript. What probably happened is that Judge refused to order one be paid for out of public money. You would be entitled to get one yourself, it costs about £200. Or rely on your own note of the hearing?

Maryz · 01/09/2011 09:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Spero · 01/09/2011 09:07

Trying to articulate the reason why JH angers me so much.

I think it is his repeated insistence that the family justice system is an 'evil' system.

It may be underfunded, understaffed and inefficient - all issues which we must address - but it is NOT evil.

To keep banging that drum, as an elected MP gives unmerited credibility to mad and delusional accusations. It scares people, turns them away from seeking help and who suffers the most in all this? Always the children.

So while I am grateful to JH to clarifying his position to some limited extent I still do not resile one bit from my assertion that he must resign if he choses to conduct himself in this way.

I may not get the last word on this thread, but this will be my last post. There will be another one along in a few weeks I am sure, so better save some energy for that.

hester · 01/09/2011 09:33

Do you think JH wakes in his sleep, screaming, "SOMEBODY STOP ME, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD"?

Spero, enjoy your rest away from the heat of battle: you have done sterling work and deserve some time off.

I think JH angers ME so much because he's got that little-man-posing-as-big-man thing going on - instead of actually being an important person, by working hard and effectively in his chosen sphere, he pretends to be important by abusing his privileges and by playing with all this one-man-in-the-face-of-the-great-Satan stuff. It's very annoying wherever you come across people like this, and particularly annoying where we are paying them and giving them privileges which they then take the piss with.

Original poster
johnhemming · 01/09/2011 11:26

My experience of the system sitting on judgments is different. I am not saying everything is wrong, but I am saying that there is a lot wrong. I am not the only MP saying this as well.

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 01/09/2011 11:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

kelly2000 · 01/09/2011 11:43

I hope she hires a lawyer for her baby, as the baby has a human right to a family life. She should go to a Scandanavian country they give british social services short shrift, and it is nearly impossible for a child to be adopted there.

kelly2000 · 01/09/2011 11:48

Yes, are you supporting the Dorries amendment? Surely if you think the state should not interfere when women want to keep their pregnancy, and have a child you also think they should not interfere if she decides to have an abortion?

Original poster
johnhemming · 01/09/2011 15:24

Yes, are you supporting the Dorries amendment? Surely if you think the state
should not interfere when women want to keep their pregnancy, and have a
child you also think they should not interfere if she decides to have an
abortion?
That is a rational conclusion. I do not like Martin Narey's proposal that women should be persuaded to go to term so that their babies can be adopted.

I do think the option of having truly independent advice should be available [additionally], but I think that is what the government are suggesting. I haven't seen the words of Nadine Dorries' amendment, but don't want women to be forced into having counselling that they don't want. Hence I am probably voting against, but would like to know what it actually says first.

OP posts:
JimmyS · 01/09/2011 15:31

Meanwhile at least one of the dramatis personae has taken proper advice and is now attempting to walk this one back.

www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5isTuPDJiXPpfYDGMaKc770WaNHWA?docId=B5847351314881608A0000

mathanxiety · 01/09/2011 15:53

She doesn't like having to live in squalid conditions, but unlike some unfortunate children who come under the radar of social services, there's nobody beating her regularly, and her meals probably arrive on time.

Ironic really, that she finds herself at the mercy of the family court system, hoping that someone there will take notice of her plight and release her.

kelly2000 · 01/09/2011 16:06

John,
thanks for replying to my off-topic question regarding the dorries ammendment. I have made a rather long reply on the thread I have linked to below (1st page). I did not post here as i did not want to hijack the thread too much. Thanks again.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/1291343-The-Dorries-amendment-will-be-a-free-vote-keep-the-pressure-on?

Spero · 01/09/2011 17:46

Breaking my own rule but I just wanted Hester to know I hearted her comment very much. Ok, really going now. See you all soon!

JimmyS · 01/09/2011 17:51

Amazing the difference taking proper legal advice can make:

www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hi-DAN0kVihV7NFgF555LaALEexQ?docId=B5848511314891545A000

kelly2000 · 01/09/2011 18:49

She still has a criminal conviction though Jimmy

John Can I just ask why these cases are not taken to the EU and ECHR more. Under the HRA we have a right to free speech, a right to a fmaily life (and that includes the child), and a right to travel acroos EU borders etc. The social workers in Vicky's case seem to be trying to remove her freedom of movement, and in cases where they try to remove people who are children from other EU countries this seems to be breaking the law. The children have committed no crime, they have a right to be there, and if they are in school they have a right to continue their education there etc, so Britain has no right to try to remove from another EU country. And if the child is born in another country, then it is a citizen of that country and is nothign to do with the british government.

Swipe left for the next trending thread