The culmination of that pressure led the Ministry of Justice to conduct research on the problems blighting the system and led to the publication of several consultation papers, the first of which was published in July 2006, entitled “Confidence and confidentiality: Improving transparency and privacy in family courts”. From this research, another consultation paper and further responses appeared, the last of which was published in December 2008 and effectively sets out proposals for further scrutiny of the system via media access to courts which were previously excluded.

The concept of media reporting in court is not an original one and reporters have been allowed into several of our courts for some time such as the Magistrates Courts and the Appeal Court, but by opening up the possibility of more rounded reporting in all family courts, the judiciary now face scrutiny at all levels and in all sectors of the system.

At present, there are at least ten current statutes that set out media reporting restrictions and so the law will need to be amended to make way for the new reporting protocols to take effect.  In a recent debate in the House of Commons, The Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw suggested that any legislative changes were not likely to take place before April 2009, but in the meantime, politicians, pressure groups and policy makers alike will have the chance to debate the scope and extent of media presence in the previously ‘closed’ courts.

So, what can we expect once those changes take place and the media are given access to these courts? Sir Mark Potter conceded that this was the era that would usher in “an age of transparency....amidst largely misplaced criticisms of secret justice”, a defensive sentiment that unwittingly conveys the nervousness of the judiciary in allowing the press further access into its daily routine. This nervousness is translating itself into an overly pessimistic view that various organisations like the Family Justice Council, set up by Sir Potter to help improve the family justice system, express in their own responses to the new reporting proposals.

Properly regulated transparency has been working well in countries such as New Zealand and closer to home in Scotland and the reporting proposals for the family courts here in England will cover the family County Courts, the High Court and the Principal Registry of the Family Division. The types of cases that will be open for reporting are still undecided with the most concern over adoption proceedings but in general, cases that involve children as well as those that do not (such as private family law cases involving divorcing couples) will be subject to media attendance.

Although it is unlikely that the general public will be allowed in to these courts once the new regulations are passed, journalists may soon have the ability to not only report the salient facts of significant and complex cases but may also be able to report the names of professionals and expert witnesses who contribute their findings to a case. A crucial aspect of the reporting ambit, it effectively removes the quiet complacency of a professional demographic, who for too long have been allowed to seek refuge under the judge’s gown and the anonymity it affords them.

For those expert witnesses who practice ethically and within the established boundaries of their respective professions, there will be nothing to fear. For those who have forgotten their pledge to prioritise the welfare of those who come before them, the media will now be able to detect and place under scrutiny any perceived malpractice. After all, when a doctor or a lawyer out of court makes a mistake, they are expected to redress the imbalance; why not then, the expert witness in court whose mistake can also make the difference between at best, unnecessary family heartache and at worst, life and death?

The new proposals should also remove the power of judges to prevent parents and other family members from discussing their cases with MP’s but the identities of witnesses, children and adults within the case will remain anonymous to prevent undue stress and bias on the parties and most importantly on the children in question.
The palpable anxiety of the judiciary has left its mark on these proposals and there is one great big ‘but’ which overshadows the entire spirit of the reporting ethos: the discretion to exclude the press. The end result is clear; anything the judiciary don’t want publicised (which will be defended through confidentiality and welfare principles) just won’t see the light of day. To a certain extent there is a viable argument that goes with giving the judges the power to restrict press access in certain sensitive cases but the judiciary’s already depleted popularity and the public’s waning confidence in the justice system means that the judges will have to take care if they do not wish to be accused of case-cosseting.

As the pervading pessimism sets in, there are already a host of snags being highlighted by jittery judges, enquiring politicians and ardent activists, many of which can be ironed out and will be removed once the press establishes itself in the court room. There is the fear that journalists will be unethical in their reporting, that they will seek to sensationalise a story with a view to selling papers but their track record in case reporting has been excellent and the media have been seen to be compliant.

The cost of these reforms is also a source of concern although Jack Straw, in December 2008, anticipated them to be minimal perhaps because the Ministry of Justice has already forwarded £40 million to the Local Authorities, which should more than adequately fund this most troublesome branch of the family justice system. Nevertheless, question marks over the spending of that budget remain, not least of all because the Local Authorities refused to ring fence the finance, so no one is really sure where the money is going. Once again lack of accountability and transparency have created undue uncertainty.

It was this kind of uncertainty that dogged the courts persistently in 2008 and the main gripe with media reporting and how it is going to work in 2009 relates to the assumption that media presence will inevitably make witnesses and parties to proceedings self serving, seeing an opportunity to sway the case in their favour by wooing the media. Other than the fact that the media are notoriously unwoo-able (I should know, I write to journalists all the time asking for their input on certain issues and I always enclose some kind of chocolate bar as a ‘sweetener’, but oddly enough I never have any luck, although I am sure they eat the chocolate bar) there is also the reverse argument, namely that secret justice encourages parties to be even more self-serving, able to hide under the exposing radar so that they can say and do as they please with little or no consequence. With the media as a subliminal pressure on the system, parties to proceedings are less likely to try to outsmart the system, judges are less likely to follow experts in their cosy consensus and public authorities are less likely to act on insufficient evidence (and if I see any of those journalists in court, I will ask them, very politely, for my chocolate bars back).

It may be however, that no one will get to see these journalists as the Family Justice Council has expressed concern over the lack of space in some court rooms, thereby suggesting that as a result the media may be restricted on a technicality. At first glance this sentiment has something of the absurd about it, as most courts can accommodate reporters and the more complex cases tend to be placed in the larger courts in any event, but upon reflection it is just another melancholy reminder that the judiciary are truly worried about the impact the press will have on their image and ultimately their sustainability.

The parting argument the Council gives in its attempt at bursting this ever growing bubble is that a cost benefit analysis needs to be done in order to identify the advantages of greater transparency over financial and time resources, the implication being that they are superbly sceptical of the overall positive impact more transparency would create. To anyone who has been through the system, worked in the system or just reads the news, the arguments for transparency are there for all to see and in a democratic society justice can never be done behind closed doors. The increased exposure of the family courts through diligent reporting is just the tip of the iceberg: the courts need audio and video recordings of all the hearings that take place (thereby giving a complete record of events); full transcripts made available to the parties and online (which has been proposed and when uploaded onto the internet will be done so with names of parties removed to preserve anonymity); working family court forums where professionals and families in the system can rate the service and give critical feedback and the presence of researchers and academics at hearings so that they can note how the courts work in practice (another proposal which may come to fruition in 2009).

All of these differing forms of media can and will pave the way for change and allow politicians and legal drafters the chance to respond faster than ever before to their evolving communities and their needs. Furthermore, online groups on sites like Facebook have made a genuine impact on raising awareness of the difficulties in the family justice system like the recent case of Baby P (which in one group alone on Facebook has over 370,000 supporters) and getting journalists interested and involved who in turn told these tragic stories to the nation and who put the government in a position where they had to respond in real time and on the public’s terms.

There is no going back: the media has opened up Pandora’s Box and the family justice system will be exposed in all its gruesome glory, but it will be up to the organisations and individuals within the system to carry that mantle on and make this exposure count. Journalism and online debate can only take us so far; once the doors of the Star Chamber are open, the renovation must begin. 2009 is set to be one of the most exciting years in British legal history and media, in its diverse and inimitable way, has created the perfect platform for a revolution.

Stories on forced adoptions, SGO and more coming soon.

Giving Mums a voice

The Child Protection Register was abolished in April this year following
Lord Laming’s recommendation in the Victoria Climbie Inquiry Report. Child
Protection Conferences were the meeting where the decision was made about
registration.  These conferences are still held and decisions are made by
a range of professionals about whether or not a child needs a child
protection plan to keep them safe from ongoing risk of abuse.  This
conference must consider the needs of all children in the family and
household. Professionals from the child’s school, health services, police
and social workers as well as specialists such as child psychiatrists,
probation officers, drug and alcohol counsellors attend where they have
information or expertise to contribute.

The category or categories of abuse are specified – neglect, physical, emotional or sexual.
Parents and carers as well as young people commonly attend the conference and take a
key part in the plans made to keep the child safe.  About 96% of children
subject to child protection investigation remain in the care of their
families so this process is an important means of carefully confronting
the issues and working out how to make sure the child/ren are protected.

Children and parents attending can have an advocate present throughout the
conference. After an initial conference the review conference takes place
after 3 months and subsequently every 6 months until it is decided that
the child/ren are safe or if the protection plans have not worked and
legal safeguards need to be in place.

So what is the difference between a child ‘subject to a plan’ and a child
whose name is on the Register?  Superficially it may seem that there is
not much difference. However, the decision to register was always a very
serious one. It was not a legal process but the courts gave a lot of
weight to the decisions made. Professionals knew that placing a child’s
name on the register was a very complex and important decision to take. I
don’t think the same weight will be given to a ‘plan’ and the probability
is that more children will be provided with child protection plans than
previously were registered and the high risk children will be lost amongst
high numbers of less serious cases.

It was sometimes said that parents felt stigmatised by the registration
process. Yet the research focussed mainly on the parents rather than the
children’s views. Confronting and challenging parents is never going to be
an easy process however sensitive and competent the professionals
involved. The researchers needed to ask whether the abused children valued
the process and felt safer as a result.

In the 5 years prior to 2007 the numbers of children’s names on the
register for physical and sexual abuse halved. The government had devised
performance targets for registration. For example, children had to be
visited regularly and reviews take place on time. At a time of staff
shortages the pressure was for managers to reduce the numbers of children
registered in order to more easily meet these targets and get their star
ratings. It was widely known that children’s names were removed if they
were seen to be old enough to look after themselves, were said to be
placing themselves at risk , were abused by people external to the family
or if they were already in care. Therefore some high risk children, who
would in the past have been the subject of registration, were already
being denied the multi agency working provided by the process.  Even if a
child is in care there may be risk from an abuser during contact
arrangements and child protection procedures may need to run alongside
those protocols for children in care.

Studies of serious case reviews over the years have shown that very few
children whose names were on the register died or were seriously harmed by
abuse. Most children harmed were those who were not known to the
authorities at all or who were referred by defined as children in need of
services rather than children in need of protection from abusers. There
was no doubt that the Register was an essential part of a system that
protected abused children.  Yet, in answer to a parliamentary question, a
government minister recently stated that the register was abolished on the
basis of no research at all. If the ministers had been studying the
findings of hundreds of serious case reviews they would have certainly
retained this essential system which is widely understood and recognised
not only by staff in all agencies but also by the public.

When a child’s name was on the Register an immediate alert went to police
and hospitals if a child came to their notice. These police officers and
doctors would then check with the social worker or the police child abuse
investigation team and make decisions informed by background knowledge.
Since April this alert system is no longer in place throughout the
country, although in London, and possibly in other areas, it has been
retained so that children who are the subject of child protection planning
are still flagged up on the police and hospital systems. Where this is not
in place, instead of an alarm drawing attention to high risk children, the
professionals have to check every single child against the database to see
whether or not they are known to children’s services and then make a call
to see if that child is the subject of a child protection plan. To busy
police and doctors this clearly is unworkable.

State interference with family life has to be justified. After all, most
parents care for their children very well and professionals do not need to
be involved in their lives. When parents abuse a child there is
justification for professional involvement in order to respect and uphold
the child’s right to be safe from harm.  The Child Protection Register was
a clear and effective procedure for working with parents to keep their
children safe or for making decisions to take legal safeguards where
children need to be removed from their families. I have no doubt that
children will be less protected as a result of this disastrous change in
policy.

PLEASE NOTE, THESE FIGURES WILL BE UPDATED EVERYTIME WE RECIEVE OR FIND INFORMATION ON A CHILD MURDERED. ALL INVOLVE SOCIAL SERVICES FAILURES AND ALMOST EVERYONE INCLUDED NSPCC FAILURES TOO. THERE ARE STILL AT LEAST A FURTHER 40 NAMES TO ADD TO THIS LIST SO BARE WITH ME AS I AM SEEKING THEIR AGES AT DEATH

Baby P - Haringey

Tyra Henry - 21 mnths old - murdered by her dad - her brother Tyrone whose injuries – including fractures of thighs and skull, retinal haemorrhages, and brain damage causing fits – had left the boy blind and with a learning difficulty

Maria Caldwell - Social Services, NSPCC and Police did nothing = Maria Colwell died on 6th January 1973, aged 7

Jasmin Beckford, NSPCC, Social Services failures = Jasmine had been locked in a small bedroom with body-building weights tied to her broken legs to stop her moving. Emaciated and deformed, she weighed just 23 pounds. She had 40 injuries to her face and body – her ribs were also broken and she had ulcers, burns and cuts to her leg.

28 June 1944, Dennis O’Neill = Foster care abuse complaints ignored by Social Services - he died from the abuse

Carly Taylor - her childminder wrote directly to the Director of Social Services, having failed to persuade the senior social worker that Carly was in danger after neighbours and relatives were ignored by social services

Stephen Meurs (1975)

Heidi Koseda (1984),

Jasmine Lorrington was 4 when she died in Brent on 5th July 1984.

20-month old Martin Nicoll67 injuries

8-yr-old Victoria Climbié kettle of boiling water tipped over her head. Her toes were struck with a hammer. She was beaten with a bicycle chain, belt buckle and had cigarettes stubbed out on her body. She lived in a freezing bath. On 25th February 2000 Victoria died of hypothermia and multiple organ failure, with 128 horrific injuries to her body, after suffering months of horrific abuse and neglect in a tiny flat in Tottenham, London.

Lauren Wright aged 6 was found dead on 6th May 2000 after suffering a fatal blow to the stomach from her stepmother, which caused her digestive system to collapsed

In January 2002 Ainlee Labonte/Walker, of Plaistow, east London, aged two years and 7 months, was starved, punched, scalded, burnt and tortured to death by her parents. She had 64 scars, scalds and bruises on her body, including cigarette burns. The inquiry identified a “lack of communication” between agencies.

John Gray, police failures just 21-months old, suffered more than 200 injuries before he died. John suffered a series of beatings from his mother’s partner. He had more then 200 injuries to 92 parts of his body. His liver had been ruptured, he had a fractured arm, broken ribs and injuries to his testicles. police ignored natural fathers complaints

Tiffany Wright aged 3 was found dead in September 2007 in an insect-infested room in the Sheffield pub run by her mother and stepfather.A review into her death found social services never visited the pub despite a midwife’s fears that their children were left alone in unfit conditions.

Bristol have been criticised for information sharing and assessment failings in the case of a 10-year-old girl who died following years of neglect. A serious case review into the care received by “Child A”, who died from a heart attack after falling into a bath of scalding hot water, said professionals failed to grasp the level of neglect endured by her and her seven siblings. Though the children were placed on the child protection register from May 2003 to January 2004, they received no other systematic assessment of their needs, while professionals treated significant risk indicators in isolation, failing to build up a picture of the family situation.

Police and social services failed to visit seven-year-old Khyra Ishaq in the four months before she apparently starved to death, despite an initial “welfare check” on the family

An inquiry into the care of a seven-year-old girl who was shot dead while staying with a convicted crack dealer has uncovered a catalogue of failures by social services, children’s guardians and immigration officials.Toni-Ann Byfield was under protection of Birmingham City Council. Police believe Toni-Ann was murdered to prevent her from identifying Mr Byfield’s killer.

A coroner accused social workers of a “gross, total and complete” failure to protect a 13-month-old girl who died in squalor. Sophie Casey’s grandparents, a neighbour and a hospital had warned them about her mother’s neglect and the one-armed heroin addict who lived with them.

Tyrell Rowe 19-months old, died in hospital on 17 October from brain damage after being repeatedly punched in the face. Hackney Council social services had been supervising the baby, but had not examined him during that period.Judge Anthony Morris criticised the council for not making public an internal investigation into the death. ‘Lack of protection’ “I find it regrettable because the purpose of such an investigation must be how such failures occurred and to prevent them happening again,” he said. “I am disappointed by the apparent lack of protection given to Tyrell by the social services department.”

A baby girl murdered by her sadistic father could have survived if health and social workers had taken action over signs of illtreatment, a damning report said yesterday. Jessica Randall was just 54 days old when she died. Her brief life was dominated by systematic and horrific abuse at the hands of her 33-year-old father Andrew, who was jailed for her murder.A report found that both social workers and hospital staff failed to classify her as a child “at risk”, even though concerns over her safety were raised a number of times.Jessica was seen on ten separate occasions by up to 30 healthcare professionals, including doctors, health visitors and nurses.

April 26, 2005, Kimberley Baker died,” he said. “She should by that time have been a thriving, lively 11-month-old girl and she was not. “She was a pitiful, seriously emaciated mite, dehydrated and starved with severe ulcerations to her buttocks. “Her weight was that of a six-week-old baby. Her skin fell loosely around her. Photographs of her are truly shocking. “Her chance of a decent life or any life in this world had been snuffed out by the appalling negligence of you two. Despite the concerns over Kimberley the health worker did not go upstairs to see the baby.

Social workers and police were accused of disastrous failures that led to the murder of a month-old baby. Luigi Askew was left at the mercy of his violent father Duncan Mills, who had a prison record and a history of assaulting girlfriends. A social worker and a health visitor called at the baby’s home the day before he was beaten to death by his father last May. They reported the child was “developing well”.

Vivian Gamor, 29, murdered Antoine, 10, and suffocating Kenniece, three, in Hackney, east London. Judge criticised a council after it allowed a mentally ill woman access to her children before she killed them.

Sophie Merry, three, had a ruptured intestine and 170 bruises

Chelsea Pickering, 11 months, died after neglect

Kimberley Carlile, four, died after being starved and beaten by her stepfather, Nigel Hall. Greenwich social workers were allowed only to peep through a glass panel at the top of a bedroom door. The inquiry recommended that responses be made immediately to any referral suggestive of child abuse.

Doreen Mason, 16 months, died after her mother and boyfriend bruised and burnt her and broke her leg but failed to have her injuries treated. The inquiry said her social worker was inexperienced and unsupervised and that Southwark social services had a “siege mentality”.

Leanne White, three, was beaten to death by her stepfather, Colin Sleate. An inquiry said Nottinghamshire social services had not responded properly to warnings from her grandmother and neighbours.

Chelsea Brown, two, was battered to death by her father, Robert Brown. Her Derbyshire social worker visited 27 times in the 10 weeks before her death. A paediatrician said some of her injuries had “no plausible explanation”. That should have triggered a case conference and police involvement.

Delayno Mullings-Sewell and his two-year-old brother, Romario,Manchester social services staff faced questions

Ryan Hawkins, 4, and stabbed his 14-year-old daughter Donna more than a dozen times.  Kirklees council ignored daughters who told them their dad was violent and Christopher Hawkins murdered his son and stabbed his daughter

Alisha Allen aged 5 months, A CATALOGUE of errors by care staff contributed to the death of five-month-old Alisha Allen, a report has found. The helpless youngster died from serious head injuries in January 2007.

Baby A” 10 months old - died last December in Doncaster

Amy Howson aged 16 months died from over 40 injuries including her spine being snapped by her dad James Howson 25

Alfie Goddard aged 3 months old, murdered by his father Craig Goddard, 25, in May

UPDATED

Aaron Gilbert 13-month-old = Swansea Social Services failed to act on child abuse allegations that led to Aaron being murdered in 2005 and who was subjected to a torrent of abuse from Andrew Lloyd, aged 23

Toni Dales, three, died in February 1992.
Toni died from repeated blows to the head despite reports by nursery teachers of unexplained bruising and a plea for help from her mother. No case conference had been called by social workers, who were under pressure. Her case had been formally closed a month before her death.

Shirley Woodcock 1982 3 years Blow or blows to the head

Lucie Gates 1979 2 years Burned to death mother

Maria Mehmedagi 1978 11 months Massive head injury and killed by father

Malcolm Page 1979 aged 14 months old

Stephen Menheniott Jan 1976 19 months old

David Naseby Died aged 4 months

Gavin Mabey aged 2 yrs 5 months

Neil Howlett Died aged 2 yrs 1 month

Darynn Clarke Died aged 3 yrs 1 month

Claire Haddon 1979 Died aged 14 months Extreme violence -

1973 Graham Bagnall Died aged 2 years old (Shropshire)

1978 Karen Spencer Died aged 1 year 4 months (Derbyshire)

Shaun O’Connell is a vastly experienced McKenzie Friend and works on several areas of the law, not limited to Family cases but inclusive of environmental and Human Rights issues.

Having witnessed the system first as a self represented parent and then as an advisor to other parents, Shaun’s personal involvement in his own case and subsequently his interaction with the family courts as a McKenzie friend, a field in which he has personally been involved in setting precedent, make him the ultimate eye: an all seeing one. In this interview, Shaun explains the delicate balance between the difficulties in the system and the strengths.

What led you to work in the family courts?

I studied Ecological Science at university then travelled in Europe. I then did a PGCE to become a teacher. I worked with children for 12 years. I had a few problems with my wife and got beaten up regularly by her so I met the Family Courts and discovered that argument and facts presented in behind closed doors can be left out of the Judgement, State bodies can commit perjury and pervert the course of justice without any effective redress, hearings invented that have never taken place, and under the guise of discretion all manner of assumptions and matters may be judged to be fact when material evidence exists to disabuse the Court. 
No-where in any of the Judgements will you find an analysis of my own children’s welfare including my daughter’s daytime wetting since 1997 to 2005 at the very least, my son’s referrals to child and family guidance every year since 1997 except for 2003, counselling at school for low self esteem and lack of confidence in 2004 and referral to psychiatrist in 2005 and severe behaviour problems at school nor the school forging school reports as they had unlawfully changed my children’s surname without my knowledge. 
I can no longer teach children as it is too painful but began assisting others alongside the Environmental Law Centre (www.elc.org.uk) - the only non-Governmental law centre in the UK. The effects of the decisions can be very severe. I was stopped from seeing my own children in October 1999 and then in April 2000 given an order for no contact direct or indirect, section 91(14) order and a ten thousand pounds costs order for the pleasure of it. 
In 2002 I met Dr. Kartar Badsha who along with others assisted me and became involved with their work. The Environmental law centre gave me free in-house training and advice, helped me with my own predicament but more importantly acted humanely when I was at my wits end and gave me a glimpse that all was not well in the UK. ELC is a ‘we’ organisation not ‘I’ and we are just finishing our protocol for referral to McKenzie Friends via ELC.

What kind of things are you asked to do as a McKenzie Friend?

Most people do not have experience of Courts, they do not know what a trial is. They do not understand the legal process or terminology. By the time most people find us findings of facts have been made. They seek advice and usually their money has been wasted on lawyers paying privately or they have used up legal aid in fruitless battles for justice. Others feeling aggrieved may not understand the law, legal terminology, legal process prior to trial, and the importance of honesty. 
We will not lie on behalf of anyone but do the adversarial role of presenting the case in the best light possible and seeking evidence to back up our case and dismantle the opposition case. We have to read case papers as so many parents are unable to read their papers properly as they are emotionally blocked with the trauma, we prepare submissions, statements, give advice on steps to take, we give them varying strategies to take so that they choose their way with warnings of what may happen with each strategy presented and of course attend Court with them. We may act on their behalf with leave of the Court. 
Often we find ourselves counselling people as they just want to talk their worries away. We also collect case studies of prima facie evidenced cases for various submissions to Europe and the UN.

Have you seen any changes to the way the McKenzie Friend is treated in court?

I only started acting as McKenzie in 2003. I had by then accumulated six years of representing myself in my own case. Now in 2008 there has been an opening up of the system to permit McKenzie friend to act as advocate. Five times to date I have been granted the right of audience and it is helpful as often as McKenzie friend all the party is often dong is repeating what the McKenzie friend tells them. 
Many people claim that they have felt let down by their legal team and at the end of the day it is their choice to seek alternative support. I can foresee that this maybe a dangerous route to go as some misguided or without proper thought may set up potentially harmful Judgements in the Higher Courts leading to bad precedents such as Judges talking to children or CAFCASS officers/ social workers asking children under 14/ 15 who they want to live with as early as age six.
I think this has been a big development and at least there is a chance of pursuing arguments that previously lawyers would not pursue in case they affect their careers. There are many dubious theories being used by so-called experts in the family division and court reporters. Attachment is the classic. So far not one Court reporter has been able to answer how they assess attachment because there is no methodology. It is purely subjective opinion. 
I have noticed that as I became more distanced from fathers4justice I was treated better. They somehow perceived a threat where-as our weapon is the word and law. It went from having a security guard every time I went to Court to the present situation of being granted rights of audience and finding that the Court is more willing to take us more seriously.

Being unable to access the same databases as lawyers who have the advantage of large resources in-house, what resources do you rely on to prepare your cases?

Large cities usually have a good selection of the available law reports in central libraries and Universities, the internet is a useful tool but sometimes people don’t realise that mere words in an article do not make law. We mostly stick to Higher Authorities such as European Court judgements and statute law [all available on the internet] and common sense. Most English law is discretionary and behind the use of discretion hides all manner of sins. Some law books are also useful.

How do you find the judges at different levels of the court hierarchy?

The higher up they are the more practised they are. I would say it is individual Judges rather than level of hierarchy that is the important factor. Generally speaking District judges are failed solicitors, Circuit Judges have a better knowledge of law and I have had brutal experience at hands of Senior circuit judges. High Court judges have a highly political role and have not inspired the greatest of confidence. 
Appeal Judges vary immensely. I would say in their defence that the policy brought in by Thatcher of the Courts being funded by itself has had a very detrimental effect as well as the over-riding objective in particular to give time for other people’s cases. Over time Judges who we have met more regularly are more prone to assist once they realise we do not play dirty tactics and are acting honestly.

You must face some frustrating aspects of the court system on a daily basis: what is your worst experience to date?

This is a difficult one to answer as there are so many experiences - there was the case that was transferred to a Court 120 miles away at 2pm the day before the hearing [the father lost his payment for B and B and it caused us delay in preparation], documents being before the Court that the party is unaware of, the failure to give copy of the court bundle to the LIP, late serving of documents/ reports on the day of the hearing, prima facie perjury and underhand acts by the opposing parties and the sheer lack of independence of Guardians. I have been ejected from Court (on the basis that there is no such thing as McKenzie friend in family proceedings], prevented from pursuing argument and cross examination, and on one appeal [DJ to Circuit Judge] informed that putting insufficient weight on a factor is not a valid ground of appeal! That case we were winning the argument and then at 14.20 the Judges mobile went off and she returned a different character. Winning the facts of the case but then losing in the discretionary use of powers in the Judgement under the Children’s best interests. Watching a mother being taken to prison after her barrister had pursued an adjournment [which was refused so witnesses could not attend] and then seeking permission to appeal when both the Judge and the barrister knew permission to appeal was not needed from committal hearings.
In another case the Judges informed us that the section of the Children’s Act on unmarried fathers being forced to apply for parental responsibility has been determined as compatible with the European Convention in B v UK. No such authority exists as far as we can tell. I think the worst moment was two years ago on being given the right of audience by LJ Potter and I shook and trembled with anger at the way he bludgeoned any sense of a fair hearing and tried to order the father to provide his skeleton argument and all evidence he relied upon in two weeks and the mother could give her reply the day before the hearing.
Even prima facie procedural law which the Judge must obey has been regularly breached.

Have you had any good experiences in court?

Yes undoubtedly. Getting right of audience granted after a withering attack on my character by barrister for the Local Authority - that was a nice feeling since it was the Judge who protected me that day. A three day hearing in the Court of session where we spent the first day roundly criticising the top English Judges for their lamentable actions and yes we did win that one. Seeing parents cry with happiness when told they will be able to see their child. Watching a social worker kick the door as he was forced to admit he did not investigate fact or evidence. At the higher end of the spectrum we seem to be getting biscuit crumbs and without seeing the bench memorandum - an advisory opinion of the case lawyer [which is disclosable under ECtHR decisions] have no knowledge of what the case lawyers opinion is or what facts the Judge relied upon or was informed of. We tend to win battles on the whole but not the wars. Otherwise we would have some very interesting precedents set-up. Even in the last week we have won two Appeals and lost a challenge to ICO under sections 6,7 and 8 Human Rights Act 1998 but with a very interesting Judgment made.
There are so many divides in the family sector, from judges who disagree with each other on policy and mothers’ groups and fathers’ groups who are in conflict over contact issues for example; how would you feel about the courts trying to implement a more collaborative process to give every family the ability to be heard un-stifled by strategy and secrecy? 
I think the gender wars are very unhelpful. Any mother who loses a hearing will blame it on her sex and vice versa. I do not believe in State intervention to the extent that is taking place and rapidly increasing. I think any divorce/ separation is harmful to children and a whole industry has been created out of the misery. This society of ours has lost it’s way. They say a dog is for life and not just for Christmas - the rule applies to children. 
I think people should think long and hard before having children and if they decide to do so it should be for better or for worse. Most cases could be sorted out without the prolonged process that is in place. 90% of cases would be just reducing the conflict and sorting out time. Sadly some parents resort to lying and manipulating the system to get their own way and that is not helpful to the children and should be regarded as acting against the children’s best interests. Experience has shown the Courts tend to favour the PWC [parent with control] and in effect reward the wrongdoer in cases where the parenting of the PWC is poor.
There are many industries now evolved which make their lucrative livings from the system - DV, contact centres, adoption, experts, foster care etc. One expert alone has £2 million in assets alone. Families should not be money spinning businesses and vested interest groups and even the meek and the mild such as FNF are now getting Government funding and media coverage to keep the system going.

The media may be given the ability to report family cases in order to bolster the notion of a fair and impartial hearing: do you think media reporting will have a positive effect in achieving this goal?

There has been no change at all. It was always at the discretion of the Judge to allow media in. The Journalists will be self-serving and report what goes into the Judgement and if a journalist is present the Judge may well behave in a manner which he would not do otherwise. How many journalists does the Public think are available to attend trials? Most cases [99% or more] won’t have a journalist and it is those cases to be more worried about. Only fully open Courts will hold the hands of the Judge and make the system workable. The law as it is worded is largely fine but from experience the mighty hands of the State are rarely rebuked for their acts. The Courts must be accountable to the Public.

If there was one thing you could change about the system, what would it be?

Judges to become judges again totally independent of the State and to obey their judicial oath to do justice by mercy and right in open Courts and funded by the State to allow them to do their jobs properly. However given the acts of successive Governments this seems a pipedream. This act alone would allow just and right precedents to be set-up.

Sharon Shoesmith was sacked with immediate effect and is not to recieve any compensation package and will not receive any payment in lieu of notice

The decision by a panel of councillors was taken today after the Haringey blunders that led to the death of Baby P who was brutely abused and died at the hands of his mother 27, her boyfriend 32 and the lodger Jason Owen 36.

£19,000 of tax payers money was spent on media training to bail out those involved in the Baby P child abuse scandal when it should of been spent on improving the services for children at risk.

Article by Teresa Cooper

Image reflects the people’s anger at those meant to protect children.  No2abuse recognises there are MP’s who are working hard for children but sadly too many are not

Whilst the Baby P case remains very much in the public eye child protection has become the focus of attention once again. When cases are brought to the attention of the public eye, care leavers across the country feel the unease as the same failures they befell as children are still very much present today. With everyone focusing on those in power and willing them to make the right decisions very little is to be gained if the very key to resolution are ignored or left unheard.

With many failures leaving children unprotected now is the time to seek the expertise of the care leavers as their experiences can provide the most valuable answers and productive out come. A care leavers first hand experiences, knowledge of the failing system and willingness to work with the government is a commendable effort on their part and shows the strength and determination to work towards change that serves to benefit where every child matters. To achieve this care leavers need to be listened too and at the very least heard.

Ed Balls the Children’s Secretary has responded positively and accepted a request via an APG meeting from care leavers to discuss the issues surrounding child protection and every child matters. Is this the start of a fresh and constructive way forward? With all the problems faced this meeting can only scratch the surface and expect an agenda to address the current issues but also to put forward remedies to the children’s minister.

In order to do this effectively many topics will fall into each topic including the need to acknowledge all the past issues and then every one needs to address and seek resolution to those issues. It would be very difficult to address current issues if the past mistakes are put on the back burner as thats where some of the original problems lay and are current today in the failures of protecting children. Failing the protection of children is not something that has come about in recent years as history shows us and has been an ongoing problem. 

Why are the social services still very much in the dark ages despite vast amounts of funding?

What could and should be discussed in such a meeting?

Child Protection - which is the main and current topic since the death of Baby P who died at the hands of his mother, her partner and the lodger Owens.

Child Welfare - who are the children and families with extra needs

Looked after children needs to be addressed because with growing numbers of children being placed in care. Many face an unhealthy lifestyle being moved from one placement to the next, changing schools, being abused and despite the money tax payers pay the looked after children are not benefiting.

Children placed in care are three time more likely to die than others and a DCSF report showed that 800 children have died in care in the last ten years which is on average 2 a week so where does this leave children in need of protection who are then placed in care and should be safe from harm and neglect?

The care system needs to be addressed and questions asked as to why a child’s welfare has taken over a child in danger leaving 80% of child protection cases missed and hundreds of children taken from parents for the most ludicrous reasons such as bunking school, learning difficulties and mental health problems where it is even noted the child is well looked after. This is now a daily occurrence and the serious breakdown in social services is of concern to care leavers as the looked after child inevitably becomes themselves a care leaver

Historic abuse where all the past failures have occurred, some investigated and many others ignored like Kendall House . Historic abuse cases are relevant in learning from past mistakes as those mistakes are a current problem and the DCSF took the shocking approach to ignore historic abuse because they felt it had already been covered and instead suggests the civil route which is not the answer. It is unacceptable to ignore abuse when it happens in the care system and when it is exposed to send victims and survivors through the civil courts. This method does not protect other children being abused by the carers still in the system because past abuse has been ignored by the DCSF.

Then there is the need to address how Care leavers can help towards changes and be of service to the social care system

Whilst Care leavers could support families, social workers, help with the mass overload of paperwork, take part in the training of social workers or help towards decisions on children at risk their personal experiences are often undermined or ignored. These personal experiences may provide a useful tool that even the best text book can not teach and despite qualifications that are truly outstanding it can’t teach what experience does.

Care leavers would also well suit as McKenzie friends if the government were to help fund such training and offer funding which will support families not only going through the failing system, but help prevent unnecessary cases being dragged through the secret family courts wasting millions of pounds that should be better spent on child protection.

Many vulnerable parents are unable to represent themselves be it learning difficulty or other health difficulties and SS take advantage of this. Too often are social services resorting to the secret family courts where they not only know they are protected even when they are in the wrong but they also have the power to misrepresent the welfare of any child that goes unchallenged when innocent parents are unable to seek the openness needed to challenge any wrong decisions or doings.

Care leavers offering support and a chance to participate doesn’t exempt them from the stringent vetting processes needed to ensure the safety of every child though, nor should their past as an abused child exempt them from supporting a system that is failing the needs of children both in and out of the care system and needs support. There are many good care leavers who are more than capable of helping but because of the social services attitudes and social branding, care leavers are exempt from helping, ignored, not taken seriously despite their efforts and are often refused even the basic jobs working with children because they were in care or abused as a child.

Social Services have lost their direction and the almighty SS had an “extra” 40million pounds pumped into them for legal costs chasing parents in secret courts. They are not there to help the family anymore and resources are outsourced to others like the NSPCC who already make millions out of the publics generosity and also government funding/grants. The NSPCC are known to have been involved in many of the cases we read about where children have died also from their failures and they are seen to be involved in many of the forced adoption cases. Their close relationship with the SS leaves very little confidence in their so called independence when they are now seen merely as an extension of the social services.

Social Services have become observers of families and pass those families from one sector to another. Communication becomes a problem, files get lost or delayed and the old fashioned social worker who would spend his/her time with families and providing resources to keep families together are now sat at desks filling out forms. But it doesn’t end there and for those who don’t understand the SS a typical example ...

A couple with a child with special needs requests support and help. The parents will push for support and help with their child but social services have a budget and that budget doesn’t include resources for the child not in their care. On average a foster carer looking after a child with special needs will get over £500pw not including the cost fighting to take the child from the parent but had the child of stayed at home the costs to provide resources for the child is considerably lower but the SS can’t get those costs met as they don’t have the resources some claim. They will get funding to start proceedings to take the child into care and will then inevitably receive funding once the child is in care which goes into a “pot”. This is not only bad practice but wastes money that could be better spent on services to children and families to support families together as a family and improve the lives of the child/ren.

The Government pumped in an extra 40 million pounds of tax payers money to pay for court hearings in the forced removal of children. Yes it is a lot of money because that is 40 million pounds not spent on keeping families together who have extra needs and come under the child welfare aspect and money that could be better spent towards child protection thus keeping children safe. Costs paid out of taxpayer-funded legal aid to barristers in family court cases have gone up by almost a third in five years and have now reached nearly £100million a year

Meanwhile the costs of the process of investigating allegations arising out of the child abuse syndromes rose to an estimated at 1 billion per year with the more prominent experts receiving fees for the preparation of their reports and appearances in court in excess of 100,000 a year.

Emotional abuse is a money maker and in 2007 6,700 children were put on the child protection register for emotional abuse and yet only 2,600 for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse.

One site quotes

“Very highly paid “professionals” presume to “assess” the parenting skills of distraught mothers who have had their children taken into care.(around £3000 per 2-3 hour session ),"legal aid lawyers” (a case in the family courts costs an average of £70,000 per day so total legal costs of over £500,000 for one case are not unusual! ,)Therapists, psychiatrists , and Tame medical experts somehow always side with social services against the parents.(They also receive around £3000 for one afternoon session plus a report)
Foster parents(up to ￡400per week per child plus allowances for Xmas and holidays)Special schools charging up to ￡7000 per week per child(as shown on TV channel 4,) Adoption and fostering agencies charging up to ￡18,000 per placement. “

It is not unheard of for court costs in just one case of a child’s welfare where the child is eventually removed to easily reach £500.000.  Thats how much social services will run up in evaluations of the parent, assessments of the children, expert fees, contact centers,contact workers and this is on children with extra needs and not a child in danger or at immediate risk.

Experts in these cases are paid in excess of £28,000 per simple report

SS are very busy chasing the cases that will get them more funding the easiest way and to do that they target vulnerable families especially those with learning difficulties, ill or those with a mental health problem. Yet they waste tax payers money chasing many innocent families through the secret family courts that make many professions a lot of money. This is common place today and parents with extra needs are targeted instead of being supported. The solicitors will argue that the mother maybe a risk or in many cases make the mother out to be a psychopath when they have never shown any form of abuse to her child/ren. It’s an easy way for these professionals to secure their own income and drag things out as long as possible. It’s a huge money making tactic and the only ones who lose out are the children with innocent parents which distracts from children at risk.

Lack of Social Workers

There is also a lack of social workers in the UK and the Government are importing them from all over the world to fill the positions most people here do not want to do. Social workers are demoralised and often leave and each social worker will be inundated with far too many cases than they can cope with alone. Young student social workers are now taking on children’s cases, they do not have the experience or wisdom and therefor fail and they don’t even have children of their own to understand children’s needs. Young, inexperienced or experienced social workers trying to highlight a problem are often cut down by their target or fund driven seniors leaving many cases of abuse to escalate.

Do decision makers understand the difference between child protection and a child’s welfare? Clearly not because they have written up what they perceive to be a well thought out plan in every child matters but the focus has remained on a child’s welfare and 80% of children at risk are missed as they come under child protection.

In every child matters the programme demands that all organisations that provide services to children work together in more integrated and effective ways but this isn’t the case and it is a lack of communication and understanding between the various bodies that create the child at risk to be missed. The in-house bullying amongst seniors and front line social workers is increasing and despite more government funding, more departments being created, a constant change within departments and an unhealthy and unbalanced strategy is taking it’s toll. A lack of social workers puts pressure on existing social workers who are overloaded with cases and with each case comes more paperwork and with 80% time spent on paperwork and an IT system that benefits the management is not effective where children at risk are concerned. An IT system that cost tax payers millions of pounds and millions being poured in to the new ITC against those working with children’s approval and will render vulnerable children’s data available to abusers. The government isn’t even able to protect prison workers, armed forces, NI details etc safe so what is going to happen when the children’s data ends up with the same fate or is easily obtainable?

Many private fostering and adoption agencies are run by ex social workers who set themselves staggering wage packets. The NSPCC received over 30 million pounds from the DCSF in 2007 to fund their free helplines including childline and getting more government funding than ever whilst the small organisations struggle to compete and do a vast amount of work with victims and survivors of abuse. The largest independent agency Foster Care Associates made 56million pounds in 2003 alone. The NSPCC made a staggering 250 million on its Full Stop Campaign and work heavily with Social Services yet claim to be independent but that is now questionable as a growing trend in the NSPCC’s part in the removal of children taken from families on the basis, they “might, maybe or possibly” abuse the child takes over “the child at risk” which is a growing trend. This technique is distracting from serious abuse and those who do report abuse are often ignored. This is not the answer.

Permanence orders which is another name for fostering or adoption are another problem and not a resolution leaving many children forcibly moved from one placement to another until they are 18 years old, removed from their entire family and siblings as if they didn’t exist and those children are very unhappy. These children are ignored by social workers and the NSPCC on what they want because those children have no voice. What also has been ignored is finding out from those who have experienced this process what the end results are and many of those children now adults are very unhappy with how they were treated, commited suicide and often resent the social workers who have done this to them. They have vivid memories of how they were stripped from their families or bad experiences with adoptive parents who they had a bad relationships with. Then they go through the heartbreaking process of having to find their real families once they find out and they find themselves in the middle and not fitting in anywhere. Some work but we need to find out how many do not work and I think we have under estimated the damage done.

The children heard screaming in courts as they are forcibly removed from their families and one such video reflects this situation where the children are heard screaming and severely distressed as social workers physically drag them away as police officers take part in dragging them away and they watch their family pysically removed and thats psychologically serious abuse but the social workers, police and all involved refuse to acknowledge they are abusing that child in that harsh and cold process.

When a child is freed for a adoption and very often the adoptive parents reject the child and place them back into foster care, parents are never notified that their children are back in care.
Why is there no one over seeing what happens to those children put out for adoption?
Judges and parents think the children go to adoption panels who then home the children with wonderful adoptive parents but are they homed in these families?

This needs to be looked into urgently so this is one of the topics Ed Balls also needs to address instead of staying in his Ivory Tower where nothing is done or improved.

Because of the serious failures and since the death of Baby P going public, in the last two weeks people with no experience at all have set up groups, now want to be social workers or help fund the NSPCC. Each person/stranger who sets up a group on behalf of any child murdered should be put through the rigorous police checks because vulnerable families and children inevitably visit those groups. For every 100 000 in a group how many paedophiles and abusers are likely to be in that figure? Paedophiles will embed themselves into groups where they know vulnerable parents and children will go and they do sit, watch and wait ready to play the trusting friend to an unsuspecting single mum or teenager and, the Paedophile will watch to see who posts. These abusers are not stupid and they know people who are very vulnerable go to such a group in despair or in support when a child has died from abuse. It is great to see the public want to support but parents need to remain vigilant.

The Church of England child abuse scandal

The world was up in arms at the abuse of children within the Catholic Church and The Church of England are still hiding the abuse of all the children in their care but to what extent?

The Diocese of Maidstone and Rochester that falls in the Bishop of Rochester The Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali domain have refused to investigate the serious child abuse reigned down on up to 2000 girls in their care and refuse to hand over documents (Dec 2008) based on The Ecclesiastical Group Insurers advice for fear they will be sued.

Ecclesiastical was founded in 1887 by Churchmen, largely to protect churches from the consequences of fire but today they are protecting themselves from responsibility of the serious child abuse within their care.
The Ecclesiastical boast “If you’re looking for a company that has great products and services combined with a social conscience, welcome to Ecclesiastical.”

This unchristian approach by The C of E after all those promises to investigate child abuse within the Church domain and those promises have not been fulfilled.

Refusing to investigate and to force survivors of abuse through the courts with clear documentation of events shows they have no social conscience.

Local Authorites placed girls in Kendall House paying up to £18,000 per girl per year from local authorities between the 70’s and early 80’s, the fees the church charged went up in 1983. Girls were made to pay for miniature shampoo sachets at 5pence for every hair wash, charged for soap and personal hygiene products out of their meagre 75p pocket money despite vast amounts of money being paid for girls often up to 15-20 residing in the secure unit at any one time. Empty beds were kept open with local authority fees and Kent County Council paid grants towards Kendall House. One ex member of staff states in wiriting “One of the girls who was mentally disabled was kept on Kendall House books even though she no longer lived there and was sent to a planned placement in an adult mental hospital in Kent never to return”. 

A documentry in 1980 highlights the drug abuse which was heavily critisised by psychiatric proffessionals. MIND recieved many complaints from ex residents, staff and carers but the Church and Government opted to ignore those complaints. In 1979 an article in Communitycare magazine published an interview with Miss Law the head of KH and highlights the use of chemo-therapy.

http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/childprotect/

The Church of England speech in May 2007

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams about how the Church of England responded to some high-profile cases of abuse, and the Church’s plans for new guidance for dioceses on reviewing ‘historic’ cases.
Please open pdf document under para “The protocol, approved by the House of Bishops to assist dioceses in implementing the review of past child protection cases.

A shocking story came out AFTER The Archbishop of Canterbury made his big speech on investigating historic abuse and shows the Church are not carrying out anything regarding historic abuse and there for considered to be telling a lot of hogwash to pacify everyone into thinking they are taking child abuse seriously.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/blogs/social-work-blog/2007/12/church-of-england-must-probe-a.html

And this story again AFTER the church claimed to be investigating historic abuse

Posted: 07 December 2007

The Church of England is refusing to investigate the alleged abuse of girls placed in its care in the 1980s, saying it is not qualified to do so.

Evidence seen by Community Care, including a 1980 TV documentary, shows looked-after children in Kendall House in Kent were heavily drugged and may have been sexually abused.

full story = http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2007/12/07/106690/church-snubs-plea-to-probe-childrens-home-abuse-claims.html

Kent Social Services Director Bill Anderson started an investigation into missing files which also took them to the Diocese of Maidstone and Rochester. A report is due on Monday 8th Dec 2008 after several delays in handing over the report and was delayed even further as Kent felt it necessary to seek the churches approval on the reports contents of what was supposed to be an independant report. The report is alledgedly a mere 2 pages or less after several months spent in the archives which is extraordinary given Kent’s involvement in Kendall House. A meeting planned for 10th December with Bill Anderson, Teresa Cooper, Child Protection, Archivists and secretary is of little benefit to the victims if Kent Social Services have mislaid all the information they should have on Kendall House especially as they placed many girls in the care of the Church owned home Kendall House. What is also shocking is that Kendall House was in Kent and no investigation was ever carried out by social services into the serious abuse despite placing more girls there for a further 6 years knowing there were grave concerns for the safety and welfare of the girls after part of the abuse was highlighted in a documentry and newspapers in 1979 and 1980. That abuse was ignored. Social Services haven’t changed much in the last 3 decades have they? We will bring you the latest when that report is released, if it is released Monday given the constant delays and changes of when it will be released.

For over a year the diocese received several requests by Teresa Cooper for files held by them on Kendall House and the author an ex resident of Kendall House requests were subsequently ignored. Duped into thinking they didn’t hold any files she turned to the Kent authority. Cooper was alarmed to find the church did in fact have files on Kendall House and made another request. This request was refused based on insurers advice.

In a recent phone call the church informed Miss Cooper that they would not hand her any of the files as the insurers said they would not hand them over based on their insurers advice as they did not want Teresa suing them.

The personal files Teresa Cooper holds consist of a very indepth account of failures not only by Wandsworth social services where a clear cover up is seen but also by the Diocese of Maidstone and Rochester.

Pearl Luxom the safeguarding advisor for the Church of England was contacted several months ago and after a long talk with Teresa she has since ignored the abuse at Kendall House.

Kent Police have been involved on the Kendall House abuse and a shocking chain of events took place in what can only be described as the worst investigation by any child protection force. In a local newspaper Kent Police have stated they had a full investigation into Kendall House and no charges have been made. There was in fact no full investigation into the abuse at Kendall House as Kent Police ignored all but two of the ex residents and Teresa Cooper was not one of those two. This story will be covered in more depth soon.

Is this the way child abuse is taken seriously? No it is not and an investigation into the mishandling of one of the worst institutionalised abuse cases in UK history should not go ignored.

Teresa Cooper is now being forced to take legal action and said “I have fought for answers for sixteen years and have not recieved any support. I was let down when I needed care and the system abused me far worst and ruined many aspects of my life. I am not going to stop until I get answers and justice. All girls who come forward are strongly advised to go to a solicitor in the first instance.”

Labelled “eccentric” by The Times in 2006, John, a former Scholar in Natural Sciences at Magdalen College, Oxford specialising in Theoretical, Atomic and Nuclear Physics, shares with us his acute insight into the failings of the family courts and why exposure is the only way forward:

How did you come to work as a politician for the Liberal Democrats?

I joined the Liberals when I was 16 (in 1976) because I wanted a fairer society and when I assisted a candidate a couple of years later I felt I could do a better job so offered over time to be a candidate. I stood in 6 general elections winning on the 6th time.

You do a great deal of work within the public family law sector; could you tell us a little about the different aspects of the system you focus on?

I look at the system from end to end. There are so many injustices it is shocking. The worst thing is the results for the children both those wrongly removed and those left to face abuse.

There is a strong feeling amongst the British public that their government is infringing on their fundamental rights in relation to the way family law operates: why do you think this is?

The secrecy prevents accountability which allows corruption to seep in.

The recent debate over media reporting in the family courts has had a mixed reaction; with judicial discretion as a suggested preliminary hurdle to getting a case ‘opened up’ to media scrutiny, will media exposure make a difference?

It doesn’t work with judicial discretion. Judges won’t admit they are mad. If people really knew what was going on they would not tolerate it.

The very sad story of Baby P has caused a national outcry and the media has clearly made a difference by exposing this particular case, but there are many other issues that indicate a severe fall in competence levels within the system: what, in your opinion, is at the heart of these symptoms?

The Self-serving nature of the system. I have jointly written an article with two social workers that is available on the net.

Damaging instances of oversight like the now scrapped, incentivisation process in relation to adoption are also worrying: do these policies come about due to poor judgment or is there something more to the irrational policy making decisions that is not immediately obvious?

Parliament is out of touch because ministers are able to avoid answering written questions properly.

Another area that you are passionate about is the legitimacy of medical expert evidence: what safeguards would you suggest in order to prevent misplaced trust in untested medical theory?

The use of the system of a judicial expert and permitting second opinions. The family division conflates the two roles and has the judge responsible for making the judgment.

What other weaknesses do you observe in the system?

I could write a book, but a few examples are: lawyers dragging out cases to make money for fees; experts making misleading statements for fees; Social Workers “advocating for the child” and pressurising people to mislead the court.

Are there any strengths that you note?

There are some people doing a really good job. James Munby is making a difference as well as the volunteers who work for various organisations aimed at reforming the system.

If there was one thing you could change, what would it be?

Secrecy because people would not tolerate the reality of family injustice.