Dear Ms Primarolo
Re: Mr John Hemming MP
Making a complaint about a Member of Parliament pursuant to paragraph 15 of the Members Code of Conduct
I am writing to you for assistance in this matter as I am not familiar with these procedures and I would be grateful for some guidance as to the best and most appropriate way to make such a complaint.
For some time now I have been very troubled by the activities of Mr John Hemming MP.
Summary of concerns
For some years now Mr Hemming has set himself up as a campaigner against what he claims are serious injustices in the family law system ¬ a useful summary of his campaigning history can be found here: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/aug/08/hemmingsway]. He has particular concerns about care proceedings and adoption.
I am a family law barrister who has been in practice since 1999 so I have experience of the family law system.
Mr Hemming as an individual has a right to express his views and I agree there are legitimate issues of public concern about the operation of the family justice system in general and care proceedings in particular.
However, I think there is a serious problem with Mr Hemming’s activities in this field whilst holding himself out as a Member of Parliament. He expresses views about care proceedings which in my view are either highly exaggerated or untrue. In essence, Mr Hemming believes that the entire family law system is ‘evil’ and systemically corrupt and that professionals routinely tell lies in order to get children removed from their birth families.
Mr Hemming is extremely active in his campaigning and on line activities. He states his views in person, in print and on a variety of public electronic communications networks, including his own website Justice for Families [http://justice-for-families.org.uk].
In particular he is a very active member of the mumsnet forum, of which I am a member. It is through this forum that I have become increasingly concerned over the last few years about his views and activities. Mr Hemming frequently initiates and joins conversations on this forum and has caused considerable distress to other forum members in discussions about adoption in particular.
However, it is clear that he not merely campaigns but advises parents who are involved in care proceedings. I am deeply concerned that, given the clear views he holds about the inherent corruption of the system, that in this advisory role he will persuade parents to disengage from proceedings or even leave the country and thus may cause or has already caused serious harm to vulnerable parents and children.
His website notes that he receives a ‘large number of enquiries’ and operates an on line forum where visitors can discuss matters with other like-minded individuals. On the on line forum is a topic called ‘Talk about your own case’ for discussion of individual cases. [http://justiceforfamilies.freeforums.org/]
Further, his activity as a campaigner must raise serious questions about the boundaries around his work as a constituency MP and his use of Parliamentary resources. I note in particular that as of July 2012, his parliamentary assistant is Ms Wilson-Gavin and she receives remuneration only as his Parliamentary assistant. [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsecret/120720/sponsor-03.htm]. Yet she is also the named contact for his Families for Justice Website and listed as a Director of that organisation.
The particular views of Mr Hemming
The examples I give below of his views and activities are not meant to be exhaustive or this letter would run to several hundred pages. I give here only a flavour of the full extent but I hope that the reasons for my concerns are clearly set out.
In no particular order of importance, in my opinion the most dangerous false assertions repeatedly made by Mr Hemming are:
-
That care proceedings are initiated to fulfil government targets to bring babies into the ‘system’ to be adopted. Although he claims that this target no longer has Government sanction he maintains that Local Authorities continue to operate towards a non-existent ‘target’. It seems he is confusing this with official policies to try and speed up adoption for children who are already in care and who need a permanent family. This has been pointed out to him repeatedly on the mumsnet forum and elsewhere, but he is either unable or unwilling to understand this point.
a. See an interview by David Chaplin in Family Law Week www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2360 ‘He already claims that he has exposed the oft-denied adoption targets with the admission by Hammersmith and Fulham, through a press release in March this year, that they had achieved a target that awarded them with an additional £500,000 of funding for achieving a target of 100 adoptions or secure placements over three years.’
b. See: Mr Hemming’s Parliamentary website [http://john.hemming.name/news/index.php?yr=11&mth=0] ‘At least 10,000 young children have been dragged from their families and needlessly adopted due to a flawed target at the heart of Government, it was claimed last night Last night backing came from MP John Hemming, who said the policy led to the unnecessary adoption of 1,000 children every year’
c. See the Families and Social Services Information Team Website [http://www.fassit.co.uk/judge_orders_social_workers.htm] Mr Hemming added: "There are financial rewards - a fund of about £35million - for getting children adopted. Admittedly, it has been proposed that adoption targets are scrapped on April 1, but clearly there are still problems."
d. See John Hemming’s contribution to the thread on mumsnet on 26.05.11 at 12:36:30 [http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1222266-to-think-that-John-Hemming-is-a-dangerous-man/AllOnOnePage] ‘In order to increase adoption numbers here more young babies were taken into care. I can email the stats to anyone who is interested.’
-
The majority of those professionals involved in care proceedings are corrupt, for example experts who report in care proceedings are instructed by the Local Authority and routinely lie in order to continue to be paid by the Local Authority and parents’ lawyers routinely and deliberately fail to act in their client’s best interests;
a. [http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/news/comments/machine-for-injustice-by-john-hemming/] I am watching a case at the moment where it appears that the judge is going to make up a case against a father. I am also watching a case where a judge has specifically banned a father from talking to me about the case. What do these people want to hide? … One of the worst things that can happen normally happens only to mothers. That is that the local authority pays an expert who says that the mother is “incapable of instructing a solicitor”. Then the Official Solicitor comes in and normally concedes the case against the mother. ~(24.05.09)
b. An interview with David Chaplin in Family Law Week in 2008 [http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed2360] ‘At this point, he ventured into his self-confessed "nutter" territory by accusing some experts of being in the pay of local authorities. I suggested that was going too far – although experts get well paid for what they do most do it professionally and with an open mind but he was resolute; an expert relies for a great deal of income on this work and they know who to keep on side’.
c. [http://trialbyjeory.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/corruption-in-the-family-court-and-child-protection-system/] ‘SOCIAL workers are regularly “sexing up” dossiers on problem parents to remove children into care and even to place them for adoption, a whistleblower reveals today.…The findings were last night described as a “national scandal” by one MP who is now demanding a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system .Lib Dem John Hemming will raise the issue when he appears at the Education Select Committee on Tuesday.
d. Justice for Families website [http://justice-for-families.org.uk/public/procedures.php] ‘We may suggest that people sack their solicitors and fight the case with help as Litigants in Person. There are too many examples where Parents' solicitors have acted to undermine their case by either not contesting an order or accepting on behalf of their clients that the S31 threshold has been met when it hasn't
e. Mumsnet thread 21.07.12 at 11:06:27 [http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/1522653-refuees-from-socail-servcices?pg=17] ‘I have, however, already had one family court corruption case where the lawyers for the parents are refusing to give them their paperwork in order to stop them appealing.’
f. And the same thread on 25.07.12 at 15:36:09 ‘Having some experts who make money by lying about mothers and fathers in family courts is an injustice. Hence I campaign against it’.
-
Parents should leave the jurisdiction rather than co-operate with professionals during care proceedings;
a. Mr Hemming’s blog [http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/state-is-not-your-friend-thought-police.html] ‘However, I do not think association with the EDL is good cause to remove a new born child from a mother. She has no real choice but to emigrate because the care system is so orientated towards adoption.’
b. [http://www.headoflegal.com/2011/04/27/john-hemming-sub-judice-and-the-public-interest-no-abuse-of-parliamentary-procedure/] John Hemming April 30, 2011 at 21:52 ‘The problem is that when the judicial process is so badly flawed that it is essentially broken then the only real option is to emigrate’.
c. [http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1222266-to-think-that-John-Hemming-is-a-dangerous-man/AllOnOnePage] his comment on 26.05.11 at 10:59:11 My warning to people is that although leaving the country is likely to get a positive result it is very difficult now to get financial support from foreign benefits systems. Hence people … need to be self-financing.
Mr Hemming as advisor to parents in care proceedings
I am worried that the real danger in Mr Hemming’s activities is not simply that he campaigns on a false basis but that he advises people, both in person and via his and other websites.
There are many other websites he links to from his own site. The linked sites include Ian Joseph’s site Forced Adoption [http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp]. In my view, this site contains extreme and dangerous advice. Mr Joseph sets out his ‘Golden Rules’ for parents involved in care proceedings [http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp#goldenrulessummary] which include:
‘Never ask them [Social Workers] for help, think very carefully before you report a violent partner (especially if the abuse is only verbal) or even a sexual molester (especially if the children beg you to say nothing) as once social workers or police are involved you risk losing your children for "failing to protect them
IF the "SS" threaten to take your children for adoption, make sure they never forget you .Hug them tight at "last contact" so they cannot easily be removed while you repeat to them that wicked people are stealing them for money ,and to say no to adoption when they try to give them a horrible new mummy and daddy !
THIS AT LEAST SHOULD HELP TO SABOTAGE ANY UNWANTED ADOPTIONS AND MAKE SURE YOUR KIDS WILL ALWAYS REMEMBER YOU AND GET IN TOUCH LATER .Not many "adopters" will want to take in a child who has been told to say "NO" to adoption in any case !
In my view such advice, if followed, clearly puts children at risk of continuing violent and sexual abuse or serious emotional abuse.
Mr Joseph’s site is an affiliated site upon the Families for Justice Website i.e. an organisation that has ‘agreed to work with Justice for Families to improve the situation in respect of Public Family Law’. I have repeatedly asked Mr Hemming on the mumsnet forum to explicitly disassociate himself from Mr Joseph, given the extreme and dangerous nature of his views. Mr Hemming refuses.
Parents involved in care proceedings are likely to be undergoing one of the most difficult and stressful periods of their lives. They and their children are likely to be very vulnerable. I am very worried that they people may trust Mr Hemming’s advice simply because he holds a responsible public position as a Member of Parliament.
Given that Mr Hemming is very clear that he believes the whole system is ‘evil’ and that children are removed on the basis of lies to meet government targets, I am afraid it is likely when he advises parents in care proceedings that he will encourage them to disengage from legal proceedings or even to flee the jurisdiction. Mr Hemming openly states that he has helped parents avoid child protection investigations.
Therefore, his actions potentially put already vulnerable children at even greater risk of harm.
I attach to this letter a copy of a message sent to me by a user of the mumsnet forum. She has given her permission for me to refer to this. It speaks for itself.
I imagine it must be terrifying for a parent facing care proceedings to be told by a Member of Parliament that there are government targets in place to remove her children that experts will tell lies in court to ensure her children are removed, her own lawyers won’t help and thus she has no choice but to leave the country. It must be equally frightening for any child in that situation.
What records does Mr Hemming keep of the advice he gives parents and the outcomes for their families after they have taken his advice? In particular, what are the outcomes for the children?
Despite frequent complaints about the ‘secrecy’ of the family courts he appears to be utterly unaccountable for the advice he gives and the consequences of that advice.
Judicial and Parliamentary criticism of Mr Hemming
I refer to the judgement of Wall LJ in P v Nottingham City Council & the Official Solicitor [2008] EWCA Civ 462 which criticises Mr Hemming’s behaviour in those proceeding as an abuse of his position.
I note in particular the following references:
- Para 85. Over the period during which this judgment has been reserved, I have, of course, carefully considered Mr. Hemming's interventions in this part of the case, and I have re-read the files. Having done so, the feeling of incredulity which I experienced on 4 March has not diminished.
- Para 86. In my judgment, SC's files demonstrate overwhelmingly four clear facts. They are; (1) that RP was fully aware that SC had doubts about her ability to provide instructions; (2) that RP was fully aware that the Official Solicitor was being approached to act on her behalf; (3) that she was fully aware that the Official Solicitor had been appointed, and was representing her; and (4) that she was fully aware of his role in the proceedings. In short, RP's assertion that she did not know the Official Solicitor was acting for her is manifestly unsustainable.
- Para 87. Mr. Hemming's response on RP's behalf is that this cannot be so because the file has been interfered with. I have, of course, considered that response with care. It is a profoundly serious allegation. However, it is one for which, in my judgment, there is absolutely no evidence. The only query is the mistaken date on the typed attendance note.
- Para 88. I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr. Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr. Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.
- Para 125: Mr. Hemming’s allegation that HJ [the clinical psychologist] is part of an “evil” system only warrants comment because it comes from a Member of Parliament, and thus from a person in a responsible public position whom one ought to be able to trust only to make serious accusations when they are based on evidence. I am astonished that somebody in Mr. Hemming’s position should have seen fit to put such a disgraceful allegation into the public domain. I reject it unreservedly.
As early as 2007 Mr. Hemming has been criticized in Parliament [http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmhansrd/cm070726/debtext/70726-0001.htm#07072638000735 House of Commons Hansard Debates 26 July 2007]. Kevin Brennan (then the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children Schools and Families), in answer to a question from Mr. Hemming commented:
‘what is not legitimate is—sometimes in pursuit of a headline in a popular newspaper—to accuse the Government, professionals in the social care sector, local authorities, and indeed the courts, of not trying to act in the best interests of children, which is what the system is designed to do.’
In all the circumstances that I outline in this letter, I am simply baffled that Mr Hemming has been allowed to continue for so long in this manner.
The relevance of paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons
I note that paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct states that Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.
For many years now Mr Hemming has been abusing his position. He advises vulnerable parents on the basis of inflammatory false assertions whilst holding himself out as a Member of Parliament. He is unaccountable for the advice he gives and the consequences of that advice. It is not clear how he maintains boundaries between his work and remuneration as a constituency MP and his campaigning/advisory work.
That this situation persists and is apparently allowed to persist is certainly undermining my trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament.
I therefore raise the question of whether I may properly complain that Mr Hemming is in breach of paragraph 15 of the Code of Conduct and I would therefore be very grateful for any assistance you can give in this matter.
Yours sincerely