family courts - times campaign

[tatt]

I've no personal experience of these courts but the stories I have read make me pretty concerned about the secrecy around them. Read the story here and if you are also concerned sign up to their campaign

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article4271773.ece

The point about lack of resources and under-staffing is undoubtedly true. And probably affected the so-called review of historic family court cases after poor Sally Clark (RIP) was cleared. SWs under immense pressure just to deal with the day job are hardly going to commit huge resources to tracking down past cases and analysing what might have gone wrong.

But without such efforts, serious problems with the system are being missed. And those in authority can say 'everything's fine'.

What we need is a proper, thorough, independent review of the workings of the family courts system. And scrutiny. It's all very well making sweeping comments about openness meaning salacious headlines in the Sun. It is not beyond the wit of highly trained judges to devise a system that would allow scrutiny without harm.

Secret justice is no justice. And it's not just about court reporting. Parents have been barred from talking to their own MPs - a hideous abuse of democracy that is clearly downright wrong. What sort of system allows that to happen?

The judge was not part of Sally Clark's team so I don't know what you are on about there.

And thank you for patronising me about contacting my MP. I do apologise for daring to raise my concerns about failings in the system. Of course all I said was 'I'm a member of the Cavendish fan club'. Because of course anyone who dares to doubt the family courts are perfect is an idiot.

Oh for heaven's sake, now all parents who have had children removed by the family courts are monsters who threaten the adoptive family.

FFS, no wonder there is no justice when people working in the system make such sweeping generalisations. Why is it not possible to think about the individual circumstances of each case and make the decision that is best for that child? If parents are cleared, if there has been a miscarriage of justice, why issue a blanket 'tough tit, some parents who have been through the family courts are bad people so no, you can't have justice'?

So it's OK to remove children from the only home they have known if that home is with their birth family, but not OK if that is with the adoptive family? How does that make sense?

You could allow contact between parents who have been the victims of miscarriages of justice and their children short of over-turning an adoption, where that is appropriate. If anyone gave a toss about justice OR the needs of the child.

Also, I think the point was missed that the reason Roy Meadows was caught out was that he DID give evidence in an open court. If he'd only given evidence in closed family courts, would we have ever known, would he ever have been picked up for advising outside his area of expertise?

Also, it's really hard for a non-expert to know that an "expert" is talking out of his arse. A recent Ben Goldacre article talks about the Doctor Fox lecture which shows that even those who work in a similar field find it hard to spot nonsense when presented by a charismatic and impressive lecturer. Would a judge automatically KNOW when an "expert" had wandered outside of his jurisdiction?

This is all the more reason for courts to be open, to increase the chances of someone to be able to call foul play.

I think it is interesting that people here are suggesting that children's courts should be reported in the same way as rape cases. I have seen a number of arguments that rape cases should have more protection for the alleged perpetrator. Transparency is indeed an important safe guard, but these are very very sensitive issues being discussed. The level of privacy protection needed for children, parents and other parties might make openness nonsensical. I'm also not sure that we have the "settings" right in criminal courts. There seems to be a huge amount of salacious details flooding the press both before and during cases. I am not sure this is in anyone's interests except for the selling of newspapers, indeed it has led to problems in recruiting juries and miscarriages of justice.

I agree about the underfunding of child protection system, the need for improvements to social workers skills and remuneration, and most of all improvements to care systems.

Isn't that what the legal system is built on though? The most charismatic barrister wins?

Spero - You removed an 18 month old from his mother because she scored below average on an IQ test?!?!

To the extent that IQ results are reliable (not much, as SS should know!), an IQ of 68 is borderline. It is not even severe retardation. Many people with IQs around 70 live an independent life. Why was it not possible to provide help to this young mum rather than take her baby away?

Really, how can you sleep at night?

Not only that by often people who are a bit slow are "represented" by the "Official Solicitor" who prevents them from instructing their own solicitor and in cases I have looked at concedes the LA's case without a trial.

We checked out the IQ of someone who was Official Solicitor'ed recently and it was 74 which is the 4th percentile (ie 2.4 Million people in this country).

The 1st Percentile is 600,000 people (and that is a bit lower than IQ 68).

At least we have got rid of the dreadful adoption targets. Those went on 1st April 2008.

spero the children's lawyer looks after what is supposed to be the child's interests, not the parents. The parents aren't told what the evidence is against them, I will have to find out if the children's lawyer always sees it. How can parents change when they aren't even told what TO change?

The legal aid budget is being cut so that fewer lawyers are prepared to help parents and those that do can't afford to spend much time on the work. Even the judiciary is concerned about that!

If parents and children all want privacy then let them have it. But where parents are convinced there is a miscarriage of justice and want publicity you need to balance that against privacy for a child who may well be to young to have a view - or be adopted into a totally different part of the country. Blanket secrecy is wrong.

But CoteDeAzure SS did give support - two visits a day for 18 mths is fairly significant wouldn't you say? Long enough to conclude whether the mum was ever going to be able to cope. If that level of support was not sustainable, and the choice was between cutting down services and risking the child being seriously injured/dying or taking the child into care, then the child's safety surely has to be paramount. In an ideal world there would be so many support services removal wouldn't be required, but there aren't. In fact in an ideal world no 17 year old would be on their own bringing up a child anyway.

My MP has responded and said he will raise the Times campaign with Jack Straw. Which is something at least! (John, it's Peter Lilley - surprised me with his interest, tbh, given his performance when he was a cabinet minister. But seems to be quite human these days and a good constituency MP.)

For those who work within the system, can I remind you, no-one is arguing that all parents involved in the family courts are good at looking after their kids. Or that there aren't, sadly, children who do need to be taken into care.

What we are saying is that there are some miscarriages of justice that show the same factors - and these have to be addressed. It would be surprising if the courts got it right every time, tbh, certainly not the case in any other kind of court, given that SWs, lawyers and witnesses, however expert, are just fallible human beings like the rest of us. The issue is, in other courts, it is recognised that miscarriages of justice are a possibility and redress, however imperfect, is available. Same should apply to family courts.

wrt learning disabilities, unfortunately discrimination against people with LDs and other special needs is rife, not only in society at large but within the NHS and social services. And that carries over into judgements made about people with LDs by social workers, doctors and other professionals. And on into the court system.

So an 18 month old was taken from his mother because 'They simply couldn't keep up that level of intervention' in other words it was down to money.

Time and time again money will win over the best interests of the child. Be it removing a child from its loving parents or not investigating one who is in danger.

How can anyone not agree that this is wrong? In fact no, not wrong but evil.

Spero, was there not any in between in this case? could SS have helped fund a nursery place for the child to reduce the hours his mother had to look after him alone? surely it couldn't have been as simple as either leave( with no help) or take away?

nooka, re "two visits a day for 18 mths (...) If that level of support was not sustainable..."

'Two visits a day' leaves most of the day when mum and baby were alone, and she managed to keep him alive. How about 1 visit/day?

Or how about providing the help she needed, whatever that was, without bailing out with excuses of difficulty and expense?

Whatever this small family needed could and should have been provided to them, rather than tearing them apart.

What next - is it also 'not sustainable' to provide specialist care for old people with no family? Quadruplegics?

If you had an accident tomorrow, had a brain injury and lost part of your brain capacity, would it be OK for government to take your baby away and give him away for adoption?

Or would you expect to receive support, however expensive/difficult it may be?

I have no idea about the details of the case (was just picking up on what Spero stated in her earlier post), and think that's part of the point really, in terms of people understanding the reasons why children are taken into care. I have however worked alongside Child Protection teams, and there are families out there with very significant problems where leaving the child in situ was clearly not in their best interest. Yes the care system is creaking at the seams, but the bias at the moment, as it has been for some time, is to keep families together. Unfortunately the resources for the support this might need are often not available. Also families do not always cooperate with those providing advice and support, so it's not as easy to just say throw money at it and it will all be fixed, nor make it all open and it will all be fine.

If the bias is towards keeping families together, why were SS so keen to snatch Fran Lyon's baby the second she was born? This is a woman who has no history of neglecting or harming children. Yet SS were determined to get that baby, come hell or high water, without giving her any chance to prove them wrong.

Adoption targets is one reason.

Be careful of John Hemming. Read what Lord Justice Wall said about him in a recent case. He accused a solicitor of forging notes to say that a client had been given advice about fitness to plead. This was without any evidence.

Cote dazur, 68 is a very low IQ. 100 is the average. Below 75 and it is difficult to function. Her child was given breakfast by being taken to the frozen food section of a local supermarket and told to point to food. the family did try to help but had their own problems. 2 visits a day (for about 2 hours a time) worked when baby was small but once becoming a more active child, clear it wouldn't work. Family lived with about ten alasations who crapped all over the floor, wouldn't get rid of them.

I sleep fine at night because I know I represent clients to the best of my ability and when they haven't got a hope in hell I tell them as kindly as I can. But I still fight their corner if they want to put themselves thru it.

I could go on and on but the point I think is made. You can't possibly know about a case or comment about a case on a snippet that I tell you or that you read about in papers.

But having read the comments on the times piece, it is quite shocking and it is clear that we do need something to be done to open up the system so the level of fear and frankly quite bonkers allegations.

I read that basically everyone who works in child protection is evil and/or stupid and doesn't give a monkeys about children or parents. This is so stupid i can't believe it is being repeated over and over again. But clearly something has to be done. Maybe opening the courts is the only way. But be prepared for a deluge of information that you will really wish you had never known.

sorry, that is garbled, probably should have said 'due to the level' etc.

Sorry tatt, just re reading I missed what you said - the parents aren't told what the evidence is against them??

Where are you getting your information? it is so wrong it is quite worrying.

Of course parents are told about the evidence against them. We all work from teh same court bundle during the hearing, everyone has the same experts reports, the same X rays, the same notes from the hospitals. In the vast majority of alleged Non Accidental injury cases I have worked on, all the parents had their own independent experts, who sometimes agreed with LA experts sometimes not. In only one case was a further expert refused and that is when parents asked a week before trial which would have meant an adjournment of about six months.

If people really believe that parents don't know the evidence and aren't given the opportunity funded by the state to appoint their own experts, then I can understand the level of anger in the comments i read. But that just isn't true.

If I represented parents who had not seen the evidence against them, I would ask for and immediately be given an adjournment and I would ask, and probably get, the judge to order the Director of Social services to come to court and explain him/herself.

spero, i am glad to read what you say and that you seem to have the families best interests at heart, but the sad fact is that not all Social workers are like that.

Re The Rochdale Abuse case, why are those social workers still allowed to practice, what about Fran Lyon?Sally Clark,Trupti Patel,Angela Canning, other women still languishing in jail that are having their cases reviewed.

re John Hemming, you are going to say that about him because he exposes problems and horrendous miscarriages of justice, from what ive read and heard about him he works tirelessly for families who are accused falsely of abuse, its no doubt his campaigning that has helped to get rid of those stupid stupid adoption targets that quite frankly were barbaric, i notice you havent given an opinion on those.

i was at an event about a month ago, a friend of a friend walked in carrying a newborn baby that i was told was 3 weeks old, i knew this baby wasnt hers and asked who was it, she said i am a foster parent, this baby came to me when he was 7 hours old because his mum cant cope.
she isnt sure how long she is keeping him for, how will that affect the baby in the long term, things like reactive attachment disorder and behavioural/emotional difficulties thats how probably.

its a sad sad state of affairs.

One of my best friends worked as a social worker (not sure that she is now, hence the past tense) and told me about a client of hers who went on getting pregnant repeatedly despite knowing that the babies would be removed (drug dependent, previous history of neglect, non compliance with recommendations from SS). She said it was a horrible thing to have to do, but it had nothing to do with adoption targets (older children had already been removed). The adoption target thing is such a red herring IMO. It was brought in to try and incentivise boroughs to place children faster in permanent homes rather than leaving them in homes and with foster parents (surely a good thing). Yes it could be gamed (what target can't) but sits besides many many other targets about the number of children on registers, levels of support provided, cases brought to conferene, and all sorts of other targets.

yes i realise that there ARE children who need removing for their own safety, i dont hink anyone is arguing against that but there have been quite a few cases of parents being accused of neglect,abuse etc, it cannot be a coincidence that the targets were put in place and we have heard of numerous cases of children/babies being removed recently that have not necessarily needed.

if the targets are a red herring then why have they been suddenly stopped?