Learn
more about family justice | Write to your MP | Share your experiences
Over the past three days The Times has set out some of the ways in which it
fears the child protection system is being subverted by forces that are
largely unaccountable. We believe that the Children Act has unintentionally
handed enormous power to local authorities and experts, which some are using
arbitrarily. And that secrecy keeps injustices from public view.
Opening up the system sounds easier than it is. Yet there are concerns that it
could lead to paediatricians and other experts being vilified and refusing
to do child protection work, social workers becoming demoralised and the
exposure of families' private troubles. That journalists would not keep
confidences. That reports by local papers might inadvertently add to the
suffering of children by revealing their identities to people living near
by.
These are valid concerns. I know two couples who have adopted children in very
difficult circumstances. The natural parents of those children are quite
unable to care for them, but they are also vengeful. Those couples and those
children should not have to live in fear of being tracked down. They have
made me think very carefully about the nuances of this. But I feel that
these considerations can no longer outweigh the risk of grave injustices
being perpetrated against children. And that we can put safeguards in place
that will work.
When the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee heard evidence on this issue
three years ago, many of the respondents seemed to assume that media access
would inevitably hurt children. That is wrong. In the Court of Appeal almost
all family law hearings are in public with reporting restrictions imposed.
The press attends family proceedings in magistrates' courts, again with
reporting restrictions. The press simply does not identify children when it
is illegal to do so. Many of my articles may seem incomplete precisely
because I am bending over backwards not to publish information that might
identify the child.
The Australian and Canadian family court systems are open and transparent.
Children's identities are protected but judgments are public, and so is the
evidence on which they are based. That means that justice can be done, and
be seen to be done. Their press apparently takes no interest at all in the
majority of cases. This would surely be the same here.
The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee took the view that courts should
be opened in all but exceptional circumstances. In July 2006, the Government
seemed to agree. It published a consultation paper stating that greater
openness was required in family court proceedings “so that people can
understand, better scrutinise decisions and have greater confidence”. It
proposed that the media should attend proceedings “on behalf of and for the
benefit of the public”, with reporting restrictions to keep the parties
anonymous. Almost a year later, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of
Thoroton, rowed back, citing a survey of 200 children in which a slender
majority had expressed anxiety about letting the media into the family
courts. He said that openness would be improved “not by numbers or types of
people going in to the courts, but by the amount and quality of information
coming out of the courts”. A second consultation paper proposed keeping
courts closed, but encouraged judges to release anonymised judgments.
That was a tragic loss of nerve. For there is no way that the growing lack of
public confidence in the system can be solved by the publication of a bit
more information that the authorities decide to let us see. Publishing an
anonymised judgment without the evidence will not let ordinary citizens see
what is being done in their name. We cannot tell, for example, whether
witness X repeatedly goes beyond their remit or offers hearsay evidence. We
cannot tell whether local authority B or judge C repeatedly gives X's
evidence undue weight. If it was felt too risky to reveal their names, I
would suggest that each expert witness could be given a unique code. That
would deter the sensationalist hack from malice, but would enable the
determined truth-seeker to track the behaviour of individuals over time, and
hold them to account.
Many of the children's charities and lawyers who lobby against openness are
trying to protect vulnerable people from damaging publicity. It is a tricky
balancing act. But the clincher for me is this. One of the most draconian
decisions the State makes is to deprive a child of a parent's love and care.
Removing a child from its family is not simply a private matter. It is a
decision that demands the very highest standards of accountability and
transparency.
I believe that wholesale reforms are needed, which can be summed up in ten
points:
1. Open family courts to the press in all but exceptional circumstances (as
recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee).
2.Let any parent or carer accused of abuse call any witnesses they need in
their defence. At the moment, they are routinely refused permission to do
so.
3.Give automatic permission for parents who are refused legal aid to get a lay
adviser to help them present their case. This is routinely refused.
4.Remove the restrictions that prevent families from talking about their case
(as recommended by the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee).
5.Review the definition of “emotional abuse” across local authorities, to make
sure that it cannot become a catch-all for overzealous officials.
6.Provide an automatic right for parents to receive copies of case conference
notes and all evidence used against them in court, just as they would in a
criminal trial.
7.Create an independent body to oversee the actions of social services, with
proper sanctions. If that body is to be the General Social Care Council,
make it easier for parents to go directly to that body rather than having to
face delays from the local authority.
8.Let children in care waive their right to privacy if they wish to speak out.
For gagging children is surely not consistent with promoting their welfare.
9.Restructure CAFCASS, the Family Court Advisory Service, from being an
organisation that reports on the parents to the courts to one that actively
promotes the parenting needs of children. The primary focus should cease to
be assisting the court process. It should be diverting parents away from
contested hearings into the making of parenting plans.
10.Review the recent legal aid cut-backs that are deterring lawyers from
taking on these complex family cases. It is quite wrong that desperate
parents are unable to find a lawyer to help them in their time of need.
Thank you for listening. As Jeremy Bentham said, where there is no publicity,
there is no justice. If you support these ideas, please do go online,
support our campaign and e-mail your MP.
Parenting classes, stay safe courses, family support workers, childminders, family centres etc.. are all part of the package for a family needing social services input! The problem is that most families slam the door on this help and their problems escalate.
J Jones, Midlands, UK
If this or any UK Government ever really wanted to help children they would devote resources to helping adults relate empathetically to children. The facts are that we parent as we were parented unless we become aware of the dysfunction. I had to learn to listen to my children! Most of us do.
corneilius, Harrow on the Hill,
Still after all this past 4 months there seems little change when it comes to justice if the judge only refers to the retrickt that comes from Ministry of Justice what is the point of having a judge at all especially when they seem unable to enforce their own orders,esp if it go's against the mother
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
social services have totally wrecked my family ,they have lied to me and my wife,they wont even look our way,acknowledge our phone calls basically they have chewed us up and spat us out .british justice it doesnt exist
carl powell, chelmsford, uk
Yes by strange coincidence that is about where I am today( Stephen) yet no one is listernig Who is the minister responsible for putting this right and is it likly to be during this govenment? How many other desperate messages have to be left for someone to do something Families need Fathers are good
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
I was fool enough to ask SS for help. Result, my family destroyed, my wife gone, my children made motherless, my children state terrorised to the point of suicide.
They are liars and lunatics who live in cloud cuckoo land.
DO NOT go near the state child abusers, they are a poison chalice.
stephen warttig, sleaford, UK
Just ask yourself this question... Where would so many children be today without the input of social services? The truth is that they would probably be dead. How can we condem a profession which is set up to help people in need?
J Jones, Dudley, UK
Social workers often work to their superior line manager, manager or county hall. Good social workers who wish to work to the family as a whole are kept in line with the departments anxiety to protect themselves. This ensures a blanket of cover not for the children's benefit but for the agency.
sheila, chichester, west sussex
You need to do your best to avoid social workers if it safe to do so! if a woman is genuinly fearful of her safty and that of her children she should make for the nearest refuge where there will be lots of valuable support! If you are able to resole this with you partner all the better courts won't
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
We are currently going through this too. Social Services have worked extremely hard to obtain their bad reputation! They have ignored the court & not filed papers. Temporary kinship foster was agreed with a time scale that has been ignored. Family Court = Guilty until you prove you are innocent
LTIPPLE, Swindon,
Social workers should be accountable to the court and held in contempt for not filing papers or following legal requirements under the Children's Act. Where are the penalties for Social Services not following court directives. They do what they want with no regard for children.
Ltipple, Swindon,
i am gonig through this hell at the moment! i have been accused of hurting my boy! there is no proof there isno evidence! it is all on what the social services think!
this has been going on since january, they took my boy, got me arrested, turned mine and my boys life upside down then gagged me!
kate, abingdon, oxfordshire
A more simple solution to all this is for the judges to look at cases on an individual basis,not act as if they are all the same. If their is evidence of violence,abuse or mental health then deal with this but don't assume all Dad's are like that the good dads should be helped to conrtibute more!
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
The CSF have told me today to return the matter to court!
Camhs have told me to consult Cafcass!
CAFCASS said;
" I must ask you to stop writing to me; I am not involved in your case."
All I did was express concern for my own children!
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
I am a parent to six children including my 13 year old girl who the intervention of social services has turned into a rebel without regard to anyone.
Before the intervention of social services, my daughter, though not perfect was well behaved at home and in school.
Taiwo Ponle, London, England
One of the many things that disturb me about the secret Family Courts is the rules of evidence used. The Family Court being a Civil Court uses as I understand it, "the balance of probabilities" a much lower standard of proof to that used in the Criminal Courts "beyond reasonable doubt".
G.Rutter, Middlesbrough, England.
For the last 13 months I have been a Lay-Person for 23+ families,my problem is that while helping these families in their cases I did not see the Social Services Creeping up behind me to remove my children for the second time in two years, daft thing this time they picked on the wrong family OOOPS!!
Jerry Lonsdale, BUry, Lancashire
The oft cited "Best interests of Children" and "Every Case is Different" are excuses used to avoid dealing with reality. A country without a system of family law that reflects the fact that children are best brought up by both parents equally except where abuse is proved is morall bankrupt.
Paul Randle-Jolliffe, Cowes, UK
The current system does not reflect any recognisable system of justice or law in either public or private family matters.
Family courts are not a functional part of the state and do not act in the "best interests of children" they are not allowed to.
Paul Randle-Jolliffe, Cowes, UK
This campaign is dangerous and could potentially mean that more children stay with parents who are actually abusing them! We are quick enough to jump on the backs of social workers when we think they are not acting fast enough as in recent cases like Victoria Climbie and Khyra Ishaq!
J Jones, Dudley, UK
I have read, with great interest, your series of articles on the present system of Family Justice and totally agree that it needs urgent improvement. All legal processes should be completely open and fair to all parties involved.
Anthony Eallett, King's Lynn,
I would never again rely on so called do-gooders to do what is in the best interest of the children having offered a second family home close to the schools and there to support them through there formative years it took just a one line comment by (In this instance Camhs)to stop contact as ordered!
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
From my own experience Social Workers need to be made more accountable for there reports or comments to the Courts. Section 7 reports written without substantiating anything they write and ignoring the facts given with supporting evidence from fathers.
Michael, Sunderland, England
I support your campaign 100%. Lets hope the powers that be take up your suggestions as above. 10 simple steps to make a fairer system. Surely in a fair and democratic society parents deserve this as a minimum?
Laura, Derbyshire,
"History will be kind to me as i intend to write it" - so it goes with every judgement where evidence is heard in secret, fully open courts are just a start, but don't expect the family court judges to embrace it as it will show how meek they are in upholding standards necessary for a fair hearing.
evans, swansea, wales
The assumption ALWAYS is that parents are incapable yet vengeful: children are removed, kept in hiding & the process conducted in secret. The only way is to open up the system AND THE EVIDENCE to public scrutiny & to waive anonimity if the family chooses. Children don't mind; bad professionals do.
Gary Orman, London, UK
There is a petition on the internet for all westernised anglophile countries but as far as I am aware it has been ignored to date by the media.
www.un1503petition.com
if this gets printed then I may have some hope the Times is acting in the Public interest.
Shaun O'Connell, Portsmouth, UK
Dear Camilla Cavendish,
Thank you for writing these articles on this very emotional and upsetting topic. I think it was long overdue, having seen the injustice and bizarre actions of the Child Protection System from the inside; and I admire you for it.
Keep going, and thank you again!
Dr A Lehmkuhl, Swindon, UK
I have a one point plan: the realisation there is no place for Dad in these family law courts and any solicitor that takes on a Dad should be prosecuted under false reprsentation as he has no chance of achieving his desired objective no matter how honourable! Contact can't be resolved by a judge!
Dave Farmer, Broxbourne, England
Fostering then adopting out children is not the answer. All its doing is pulling down the human race. Mixing DNA and causing future issues.
christina clarke, West midlands,
The Judge should be asking has the parent had the 'Government information leaflet' on what would happen if severe harm came to their child. If not then the Judge should throw case out of court. He should be questioning whether this has happened with that child before if no - throw the case out.
christina clarke, West midlands,
Why doesn't the legal system admit that decisions are made prior to the appeal hearing by case lawyers in a document called the bench memorandum and which advises the Judges whether to give permision to appeal or not? These are disclosable under european rulings - Judges dont need to see court paper
Shaun O'Connell, Portsmouth, UK
Another excellent article. This needs a wider hearing though to gain the necessary momentum. Is there a petition on the internet? Certainly SS procedures need to be overhauled to get it right more often. The Public Accounts Committee should do more to challenge the efficacy of the SS.
Anne Marigold, Monte Pego, Spain
A very unfortunate but not unforseeable consequence of forced adoptions will be fewer prospective adoptive parents. For who would wish to adopt a child forcibly wrenched from its parents? Not I.
Of course adoptive parents aren't in on the secrets either.
Anne Marigold, Monte Pego, Spain
Ed Balls hasnt replied. In fact there is no one of significant power that is able to put a stop to the injustice of the family system. I think solicitors and judges should question the social care system about what warnings they have given families before taking the drastic step of removal.
christina clarke, West midlands,
should cases be going to court when a parent isnt aware of any wrong doing? Should a so called expert be allowed to remove a child when there is no significant severe harm proven? Is is just a fact that the Government want to pull all children out of poverty and are using less fortunate families.
christina clarke, West midlands,
I would like to see solicitors and Judges having more of an input into the cases they have. I would like to see solicitors actually doing their job of representing a client rather than sucking up to the system and I would like to see judges throwing more cases out of court.
christina clarke, West midlands,
If a Social Worker is being disruptive or manipulative in a case then I would like to see that Social Worker named and shamed and NEVER to work with families and children again.
christina clarke, West midlands,
This is a great article and the reforms proposed are progressive, but there does need to be a broader focus on procedure in general and accountability.
At present, the Family Courts are quasi-legal entities; they need to be subject to civil procedure, like all our courts.
Natasha Phillips, Virginia Water, UK
Perhaps this may sound admirable but the Courts need to be fully open to all the Public. Right to lay advisor - mckenzie friend exists (re O'Connell and others June 22nd 05), as LJ Justice Wilson stated 'disclosure is unusual in family proceedings.' Full disclosure and fully open Courts would help.
Shaun O'Connell, Portsmouth, UK