Reforms
To stop the injustices that are taking place in the Family
Courts, government has to make the changes detailed below. You can help to make
these changes, in the various ways described later in this article.
Here at Mothers Against Injustice UK, we support the
following reforms to our failing Family Justice system:
End the Secrecy
This can be done whilst still protecting
the identity of the Children involved, just as it is currently done in the
criminal courts, and in other Family Court systems around the developed world.
This is the only way there can be a proper debate about outcomes, and give the
public the right to have their say on what should or shouldn’t be happening in
the Family Courts, for the protection of both children and parents.
Decisions by Jury
In the interests of a democratic society
trials should be more balanced. Where there is a possibility of children being
permanently removed from their birth families there should be Jury present to
decide outcomes in contested cases. At present only one judge decides whether a
child will ever see its parents again. This decision is made without public
scrutiny, and decisions our made without accountability, hidden behind closed
doors by the secrecy rules of the Family Courts.
Court Assigned Children’s
Guardians Job Role to be Improved
At present the children’s’ voices are
not properly heard during the legal process. This is because the children’s
Guardian has two roles - both of representing what the Guardian would like to
see happen to the children, and at the same time representing the child’s
wishes. These roles often represent a conflict of interest, for example when
the child’s wishes differ from that of the Guardian. This is especially so as
the Guardian is often an ex-social worker whose only role is to play cheerleader
to the Social Services position. The proposed change put forward by Mothers
Against Injustice UK would mean that guardians would only be making
recommendations based on what they believe to be in the best interest of the
child, whilst no longer speaking on behalf of the child in Court. This role
would instead be performed by the independent child’s advocate – see below.
Independent Advocate to be automatically appointed for
all children
An independent advocate should be
assigned during all court proceeding involving children, so that a child can
have an independent, reliable voice to have their wishes taken note of, and
promoted to the court. Advocates to also be trained to be able to explain to
all children over the age of 7 years old, in a child appropriate way, their
legal rights.
The current view of the “professionals”
is that discussing legal rights with a child is an “abuse” or too much of a
burden. This is clearly wrong, especially when decisions are being made that are
going to affect the rest of a child’s life.
Full licensing of Social Workers - oversight by an
Independent board
Currently there is no redress for
parents whose children are subject to abusive or inappropriate conduct by a
Social worker. Under current law, Social Workers are immune from professional
misconduct charges, and there is no scrutiny of their work practices. A social
worker with a history of bad work practice can be stuck off by one Local
Authority only to be re-employed by another Local Authority under a different
name - this practice is currently legal. Under the proposed reforms, Social
Workers would be licensed and overseen by an Independent board, separate to the
interests of Local Authorities and Government. Social Workers identity could be
protected, when necessary, by issuing them with a unique license number, which
would also be reflected in cases that they are involved with to assist with
Quality Control. The Independent Board would be able to revoke the licences of
those who are found to be unsuitable to be in the profession. This would help
protect both children and parents.
Registration of Court Experts
Court Experts should also be subject to
oversight by an independent board. There should be a Register of Court Experts
available to all professionals so that they could check their credentials and a
history of the cases each expert has been involved with and their
outcomes/recommendations.
Court Statistics Made Publicly Available
Before there can be any true public
insight into the workings of the Family Courts and their effectiveness, the
Courts should make available to the public reviews of court case outcomes,
statistics of care proceedings and adoptions rates. This should be carried out
on an ongoing basis by independent audits and published in a central database.
The statistics generated would be a matter of public record.
Changes in Guidelines
What most parents fail to realise is
that current guidelines drawn up in parliament which say when and upon what
grounds the authorities can intervene in the lives of families are so vague that
Social Workers and other “Professionals” are able to abuse the system to
interpret these guidelines in inconsistent and often draconian ways. In this
way, the rate of intervention by the state in removing children from families
varies widely from county to county, making the security of families very much a
lottery depending on where you live. All mothers have a vested interest in
making sure that their local MPs are campaigning in parliament on their behalf
for fairer guidelines.
Judges in the Family Court are able to
abuse their power within the scope they are given by the law (drawn up from the
current guidelines) giving wide ranging powers in deciding what is considered
abusive. For example emotional abuse has no clear definition in law, yet even
the possibility of future emotional abuse at some undefined point in the child’s
life is currently being used to free children for adoption against their
parents’ wishes. Because the guidelines are completely subjective, social
workers are able to make accusations of emotional abuse by interpreting these
guidelines in any way they see fit.
Unlike in the Criminal Courts, no
evidence at all is required in the Family Courts before a child can be
separated, often for life, from its birth family. All that is needed is the
opinion of one or more of the social workers involved. The resulting injustices
are never reported, because of the ban on reporting on what goes on in the
Family Courts.
In family law, when a judge rules
against a mother, then it is highly likely Social Services will use the Courts
to remove any future babies she may have. These babies are freed to feed the
growing demand by couples who are either infertile or have left it too late to
give birth to children of their own. Also, now that gay and lesbian couples are
legally able to adopt, this has added to government pressures on Local
Authorities to meet targets for adoption. Often local authorities are given
substantial amounts of money by central government in order to meet those
adoption targets.
Another example (and there are many) a
Social worker may have prejudices against a parents views on a particular
subject such as home education or wanting their children not be immunised. A
judge may also share this prejudice and rule that the mother is not able to
provide she considers is a normal life for her child, then order all her
children to be removed.
Children should only be permanently removed from their
families where there has been a criminal offence directly relating to the Childs
welfare
Family Courts do not require actual
evidence of abuse to remove children from families. Currently all that is
needed is hearsay. Most parents are unaware of this basic of fact. All to
often, over-zealous Social workers are eager to remove children without any
attempt first to resolve family’s problems. This not only, as Social Workers
might argue, because they do not have sufficient staff to do the hands-on work
needed to keep families together, but in order to receive bonus money for
helping their own department and, as a result, their Local Authority, to receive
what is called “Beacon Status”. Beacon Status is achieved by a Local Authority
meeting government adoption targets as set in parliament. Local authorities
receive large amounts of funding, running into millions each year, for meeting
these targets.
Another interesting fact is that all
local authorities have a double incentive to take children for adoption, in that
they are also able to set up at adoption agencies. Here, there is money to be
made with the exchange of children between families. Hence, there are
significantly greater numbers of children in care or placed for adoption in the
UK than in the rest of Europe.
Parent to be able to appoint their own Court Experts
Family Courts often ask a court expert
(a specially assigned professional) to do a report on mothers and children going
through the court process. Not all professionals are allowed to give evidence.
Only those on a “special list”, who agree with court policies, are sanctioned by
the courts. This is why there is so few of these experts available.
Many of these professionals use flawed
theories or misinterpret these theories to separate children from their
mothers. Why? Because, unfortunately, where there is a lot of money to be
made often there is corruption at large too. These experts get paid in the
region of £2,500 to £20,000 for each report they write. They rely on Social
Services to keep up the hefty supply of mother and child victims to support
their industry, built on a production line of mother and child separations.
This is why they tend to side with Social Services at the first opportunity.
For more on the techniques used by some of these professionals, see the section
“information” on this web site.
If you think that is bad enough, then
you will probably not want to hear that lot of a ex-social workers have taken a
step up in their careers and are now working as MPs in the houses of Parliament
to further the interests of their former colleagues. In addition, their links
with BAFF (British Association for Adoption and Fostering). Please read the news
section for more on this subject.
Many parents who are splitting up face
loosing their children when one partner or the other decides to involve Social
Services in the argument over contact or residency issues. When asking for the
Family Court to decide what is in the best interest of their children, families
often find the Family Courts will assign a Court Guardian that will initiate the
involvement of Social Services. Be warned - this can be the beginning of a
process that can last up to two years and results in the crime against nature
that is “Mother and child separation”.
It could happen to you! Whoever you are.
We would like to ask for your support as you too could one day be faced with an
unjustified intervention or destruction of your family by the State. One day,
you could find yourself relying on the current flawed Family Court rules.
All
Forced Adoption should be abolished
No child or
baby should ever be adopted if one or both of the parents opposes the
proposal in court.
It is
inhumane and barbarically disgraceful to legally force a child into adoption
with strangers.
Babies should never be removed by birth by
Social Workers
Social services should not remove babies at
birth from mothers who already have a child or children in care for that
reason alone. Babies and children should only be removed if they have
already suffered very significant physical harm such as sexual abuse,
broken bones, extensive bruising or burns, or malnutrition caused by the
parents or persons tolerated by the parents. Such harm should be proved by a
criminal conviction of the parent or parents. Poverty must NEVER equate to
neglect.
'Emotional Abuse' used as a excuse in the
taking of children from Families should be abolished
“Emotional abuse” is too subjective to judge. Children are being judged as
emotionally abused simply because their parents have argued in front of
them, or if the parent has raised their voice to the child. Allegations are
being backed up by very well paid experts. Thousands of children are being
taken from parents and adopted to strangers for pathetic unjust reasons.
Between 2001 – 2004 there were 440 children taken into care simply because
their parents were on low incomes.
Twin Tracking and adoption targets must be
abolished
Adoption targets were set by this government in the late nineties. Local
authorities are being awarded millions of pounds for meeting set targets.
One of which is to increase adoption by at least 40%. This is forcing local
authorities to procure children from vulnerable families for fostering and
adoption.
Social services now run a Twin Tracking system when children are taken into
care. This means that when a child gets taken into care, plans for adoption
are run alongside (twin tracked) against any other plans, such as the child
coming home or being placed with another family member. The apparent logic
behind this is that if for any reason it is judged that the child cannot be
returned to the birth family, then they have adoptive parents ready and
waiting for them and do not have to "languish" in the care system. The
government are also encouraging Local Authorities to drastically reduce the
time it takes from a child coming into care, to being adopted. This is
giving the parents hardly any chance to get a case together and fight for
their child.
That all councils comply with Article 12 of
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and HRA (1998)
The standards
are informed by Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
and the Human Rights Act 1998. The Convention sets out a wide range of
measures to safeguard promote the physical, mental, emotional, social and
behavioral development of children. UNCRC recognizes that children are able
to express opinions, to participate in decision-making processes and to
influence solutions. The standards should be complied with by councils when
commissioning independent advocacy for looked after children.
Do something about it today – write to
your MP in support of the our reforms
Mothers Against Injustice UK
