Screaming “Corruption” won’t address the real changes that need to be made.

95 thoughts on “Screaming “Corruption” won’t address the real changes that need to be made.”

1. Angelo Granda June 6, 2016 at 10:48 pm

   I agree with the writer of this post that ‘corruption’ is not the right word to use about the Family Court system.
   All the problems with the system she describes scream out that the civil family court should not be hearing cases of the serious nature outlined.
   When allegations of serious dv etc are made by any party,cases should ,in my opinion , be held in a court able to handle it. That would entail all the facts being subjected to a full investigation by Police including taped or videoed interviews of all parties , the taking of signed statements from witnesses, parents,children etc. before proceedings commence. Then witnesses should be able to present at court to give evidence in person and in public. Justice must be seen to be done.
   Faced with all the evidence against him or her, the real culprit tends to own up to transgressions and succumb to the truth,plead guilty etc. This is why it is so important that serious hearings must be in Public. That is the weakness of the guilty who cannot deny the truth when it is put to them by living witnesses. In serious cases also , i think parents should be able to opt for a jury trial ( regardless of expense) as is normal in criminal cases. A choice is often given between Magistrates or Crown Court.
   Furthermore,an ordinary court has the power to make more appropriate protective orders. It does not have to consider LA budgets etc.
   I say to the writer,if any woman alleges controlling behaviour,mental cruelty and domestic violence against a partner or spouse, then she deserves a criminal investigation . The offence should be treated on a par with rape.
   I will be interested in her opinion of my view and the comments of others.
   1. CCC June 8, 2016 at 11:19 am

      Thank you for your comments.
      Before I add my bit I would like to say that the piece I had originally written disappeared during a disastrous cut and paste attempt and this article was quickly cobbled together from memory. Not everything in the original made it here which goes some way to explaining why it is a bit disjointed.

      I don’t think the problem is with which court a domestic violence matter is heard, I feel it is more important that judges receive proper training in understanding that much abuse is a pattern of behaviour and that by focussing on isolated incidents, it could well mean that the evidence threshold is not reached. If the domestic violence matter also includes divorce and child arrangements, hearing everything in one court with one judge means that things potentially won’t get missed – if training has been put in place and the awareness is there.

      Very often these cases are complex with counter allegations muddying the waters so it can be difficult to ascertain who the perpetrator is. This is the case when a victim reacts to the actions of a perpetrator and so it is vital that a judge is able to pull apart all the evidence to determine who is actually committing the abuse.

      Also, not all domestic violence is easy to evidence, especially if there has been no violence and the lower standard of proof in a civil court means it is more likely that an abuser is held accountable for the abuse. I think that with proper training and more judicious use of injunctions, judges would be able to reach the heart of the matter much more effectively than is currently happening.

      You wrote:
      ” Faced with all the evidence against him or her, the real culprit tends to own up to transgressions and succumb to the truth,plead guilty etc”
      I think that is probably true when there is evidence of injury but in my experience, abusers are very devious in that they will deflect blame by turning the tables and accusing the victim of being the abuser and others will admit to only a fraction of what they have been accused of to give the appearance of honesty whilst at the same time minimising the perception of risk.
      I have certainly known of quite a few abusers who use this tactic and who have been viewed positively by Cafcass officers quoting Sturge and Glaser because they were able to acknowledge harm and then have gone on to carry on their abuse post separation.

      I do agree though that there should be more protective orders. The current practice of “encouraging” an applicant to accept an undertaking when a non-molestation order would have been more appropriate gives an abuser much greater opportunity to abuse undetected.
   2. Angelo Granda June 9, 2016 at 6:27 am

      I understand your comment completely and thank you for it. It has made me think and i greatly sympathise with parties to dv cases and i agree that excessive controlling behaviour ( anger,threats,demonstration in the form of chucking plates at the wall etc. can also be criminal).
      I recognise that the offender will have explanations for his or her behaviour and i recognise that most offences will occur behind closed doors at home and is difficult to prove. An offender may also be in denial and may lie to a court.
      However ,i stick to my view that in these cases the Family Courts as they currently operate are not fit to decide the issues. 20-30 hearings is ridiculous.
      First of all, a criminal investigation should have been instigated and based on an impartial investigation of FACTS. That would include ‘achieving best evidence ‘ interviews with those closely involved including near neighbours. Evidence from Mum would be checked over as to facts ,likewise evidence from Dad.The Criminal Court proceedings are open to the Public and witnesses permitted to present evidence for consideration. Procedures would be strictly enforced.
      If the Family Court would stick to facts and to correct procedure, i would probably think differently but until that happens……….. I wish you luck with your problems.
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post authorJune 9, 2016 at 7:47 am

         Angelo, i don’t disagree at all. But the problem is – and we have had this conversation many times now as well – is how are we going to practically implement this?
         You are suggesting a simply massive expansion in the role of the criminal justice system. the one we have now is barely alive. I do not know how we are going to find the government will to spend the vast amounts of money needed to train and employ many thousand more police offfices, appoint many hundreds of new judges and open up many new prisons.
         One of the reasons i suspect the system is so woeful at dealing with violence and abuse is that there is simply no where to put these people. Prisons are full, perpetrator courses have uncertain outcomes and you can’t force therapy on people.
         This is why i keep on saying that the answer must be to go back to the roots – how are we parented? Are we taught to love and respect ourselves and not to enter into relationships with people who show us neither love nor respect?
         1. Angelo Granda June 9, 2016 at 9:25 am

            Perhaps the CPS should have its powers curtailed.They should not be allowed to ponder cases so long and disallowed from refuising to prosecute cases on the grounds it is not in the Public interest when it clearly is.That might be a practical way forward.
         2. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 2:23 pm

            Sarah, i agree that we have to consider how we are parented ,how to love and respect ourselves and others and that we should be more careful before making babies etc.
            So how are we parented? Are we brought up to be morally good by example or are we brought up to be morally bad by example?

            Do you agree that children in the same family can differ totally in morals?

            I think that is true and i propose that parents are not to blame in this day and age. As i have said before, boys will endeavour not to follow in the footsteps of an abusive father ( although they may pick up some bad habits). Likewise a girl will not follow an abusive Mum.

            We are too quick to blame the cycle of bad parenting and inherited traits for moral badness. You might be thinking ,well who else can be blamed but the parents?

            These days most children spend most of their waking hours away from the care of their parents. They start at nursery at the age of two or three years (part-time or full-time ) and then at the age of four or five they start at infant school. Then they go on to the juniors and senior schools staying until they are eighteen. I believe their behaviours ( good or bad ) are formed in the education system either by the moral teaching they receive from teachers and their examples or what they learn in the playground from their peers and elder pupils.They also learn much behaviour from TV and other media including the advertising.

            Up until the time when more and more Mums started going out to work and nurseries became more commonly used ( i don’t want to get into a discussion about women’s rights, i am just discussing some practical difficulties) it was the opinion of child educational psychologists that the right age for a child to leave the wing of Mum’s care was five years of age . It was felt their brains were not sufficiently well developed until they reached that age and when they did start school they were much more teachable than they are now, they had already developed language,play skills, some reading and drawing skills and their general approach to right and wrong was already partially formed.
            Since sending ones children to nursery ( previously frowned upon) has become p.c. as a result of changes ,i think the main blame for badly reared children lies with the Authorities.
            Do the authorities accept any responsibility for moral badness? No, they blame the parents every time.
            Yet children spend most of their daytime hours at school. So who is failing them?
            I look forward to your views about this. It may be a bit of a sideline to this thread but important nevertheless.
            1. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 2:54 pm

               There is a strong argument for children entering childcare and education settings later in life, it is done elsewhere, and there is no impact on educational achievement. That is in a different culture though where there is generally more support for parents to be at home with their children and where people pay higher taxes to facilitate that for everyone. They are also societies which consider both parents to have a caring responsibility.

               Blame isn’t helpful, understanding why people behave the way they do is. Behaviours aren’t inherited they are learnt or they evolve as the result of an experience. An abused child does not always become an abusive parent, there is no strong causational link. I think it is fairly irrelevant that mum or dad is the abuser, either to the child or to the outcomes. The way that abuse causes trauma can of course affect parenting, since most abuse is perpetrated inside the home, that doesn’t really make sense of “the authorities” being responsible.

               What you are saying though means that parents abdicate all responsibility for their children, how they evolve, and how then then behave. Behaviours in children being a form of communication about what is going on for them. There are of course other influenced but parents are responsible for raising their children. Nobody else.

               I wish you would stop using the term moral badness. You may not but I wish you would. All human beings are more nuanced than that, except the rare psychopath.
            2. Sarah Phillimore Post authorJune 11, 2016 at 4:15 pm

               Its an interesting point you raise.
               My daughter was in full time nursery from the age of 7 months. So if she grows up full of ‘moral badness’ is that my fault because I chose to go and work rather than raise her?

               I reject that proposition. She is clearly ‘my’ daughter and she is clearly a product of my values and my teachings – because when I am with her, I am really ‘with’ her and take time to engage with her.

               Many of the families that I get involved with have children who are exposed at a very early age to lives of terrifying instability, due to parents’ substance abuse or mental health issues. that explains the ‘push’ to get more children into nursery as it is only in those structured settings that the children are actually safe to learn and explore and will get fed.

               Yes, some children have genetic problems or just issues of temperament which makes their behaviour difficult for parents to manage. It isn’t often helpful to talk about who is to ‘blame’ for a child’s bad behaviour. But I don’t think anyone could argue against the proposition that the home environment and the parents’ attitudes make up an important part of why a child becomes the adult that he or she eventually does.

               And those attitudes can be transmitted and reinforced regardless of a child’s attendance at school or nursery – for good or for ill.
            3. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 5:27 pm

               I agree that parents play a big part but i am asking that we consider whether they are totally to blame for low morals . In my experience, children are often okay until they start to attend school ; then after a while they seem to change,become much more stressed and begin to develop argumentative and violent traits.As if they are engaged in a bad experience at school .Some of them lose all respect for their elders AFTER they start school not before. They begin to argue with practically everything parents try to tell them.
               When parents are forced to send children to school , they do so on the understanding that they will be taught moral values ,responsibility ,concentration,politeness, good behaviour and honour. Nowadays they aren’t even taught simple parables and moral tales or if teachers insist they are ,i certainly haven’t seen any reference to them in the workbooks.
               Consequently ,whilst i am saying the authorities must bear a lot of responsibility , that does not mean parents should abdicate all responsibility for their offspring,far from it. Indeed many parents have taken to home schooling,apparently and the children love it.
               As far as learning respect for one another before starting a relationship, that should be included in the curriculum, i propose.
            4. HelenSparkles June 11, 2016 at 6:02 pm

               I don’t think learning right from wrong needs to be in a parable or workbook, it’s in all the rewards & sanctions in place. Education is a sausage machine, it was ever thus, it doesn’t fit everyone.
            5. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 6:09 pm

               Don’t forget that the bad families you describe are also a product of our education system .
2. helensparkles June 6, 2016 at 11:53 pm

   Thank you for sharing your story. I think it is brave & very helpful of you to do so. It is particularly helpful to have such a visceral description of domestic abuse (the power and coercive control) and your own experience of the way this can be conflated with toxic or volatile relationship dynamics. There can indeed be both in a relationship but it is also really important to be able to acknowledge that volatility is also a response to DA, people might be walking on eggshells but they are also pressure cookers waiting to blow at times. I’m just going to add my 2 cents on the danger of working with perpetrators around anger management, if they can manage their anger they can conceal it, and the risks are higher for the person who looks for the signs of someone about to blow if they have that in their tool kit.

   I think the practical measures are really important, there is a lot about the system that Is what it is but listings hell is not helpful, this guy writes a lot about it and I believe is taking it to the Bar https://utterbarrister.wordpress.com/ this guy I think he also mentions parking…

   Everyone waits to go to court. In criminal cases it is often recommended that victims don’t have therapy prior to trial and I do understand why just struggle with the impact upon the victims. I also think it is very important to think about the way victims are effectively re-traumatised by the process.
   1. CCC June 8, 2016 at 11:42 am

      Thank you for your comment.

      I agree with much of what you say.

      There is this myth that a victim is only credible if they are “perfect” and this just isn’t true. Victims are humans and have pasts and some can also have previously been perpetrators. That is the nature of the cycle of abuse. It is important not to demonise or disregard someone who may have a less than perfect past and to treat them as less deserving of support and protection because of it.

      Your comment on anger management rings so true. There are people who have a short fuse and an inability to contain their anger and, for them, anger management would be useful but coercive controlling abusers are in complete control and will often put on an act of intense anger to frighten someone into submission. It is a way of ‘training’ victims to not contradict the abuser and avoid confrontation.

      For me, this was the most difficult thing to grasp. That someone could throw heavy items and plates of food with knives and forks at me whilst I was holding a baby and STILL be in control. It took me a long time to see that each time he had an anger outburst, it was his way of breaking me into submission.

      Someone I know had a spouse who, after they had shared a bottle of wine, would then explode into an almighty rage which frightened the victim so much they would then try and escape in the car, whereupon the abuser would calmly ring the police and report a drunk driver.

      Thank you for the blog on listings. I have often wondered whether so many barristers were on Twitter to pass the time waiting to go into court…..!
3. Nick Langford June 7, 2016 at 6:28 am

   This superb post should be mandatory reading for all court staff, from judges down to ushers and security. It certainly accords with my own experience of the courts.
   Vulnerable, angry and frightened parents are inclined to misinterpret these experiences and conclude that the courts are corrupt, systemically biased, etc. My own involvement with fathers’ groups confirms this: they tend to peddle an interpretation which seems consistent but is not actually in line with the facts. I think I may have to own up to the “200 a day” figure as my own – it was accurate 10 years ago, but I have no idea if it still is.
   Fathers’ groups and their cheer leaders tend to obsess about parental alienation, to the exclusion of all else, when it is but one factor among many. Women’s groups similarly obsess about coercive control – a formula originated by the Australian White Ribbon campaign and now heavily politicised. Not all domestic violence is coercive control, and there are many other causative factors.
   My advice: steer clear of campaign groups generally, they have their own agendas which rarely have the interests of litigants at heart and certainly never consider the children. Above all, they should never be allowed to feed their toxic beliefs into the training of professionals. My own healing has been enabled by no longer viewing these issues in a gendered way.
   I was introduced to the concept of the Kübler-Ross curve in a seminar on family law presented by my wife, the current Paralegal of the Year. It was originally devised as a way of understanding the stages of bereavement, but can perfectly be applied to parents in the family courts.
   The solicitor Simone Katzenberg identifies seven stages: breakdown, shock, anger, pain, hatred, grief and finally acceptance. This is not always linear, and parents can sometimes get stuck in a cycle of anger and hatred without moving on to acceptance. Sometimes the curve is imagined as a roller-coaster, but it may be more accurate to think of it as a game of snakes and ladders, as depicted on the cover of DIY Divorce and Separation, a very useful resource for litigants.
   The important thing to understand is that parents on this curve cannot think or act rationally; they cannot negotiate or compromise, and certainly can’t behave in the interests of their children. Professionals, and especially judges, need to understand this, and assist parents on their path to recovery and healing. I strongly believe that the solution to effective reform will be mothers and fathers working together constructively with an understanding of how each other perceives the system, and not by gender-exclusive groups working in opposition: parenting, not breakdown.
   1. HelenSparkles June 7, 2016 at 3:37 pm

      It is a shame that real issues such as parental alienation and coercive control are hijacked for a campaigning agenda.

      The Kübler-Ross change/loss model is absolutely fundamental to work with families whatever the setting, although used in the context of bereavement, it applies to any change because change always involves loss.
      1. Sarah June 7, 2016 at 5:51 pm

         I have long been suspicious of any attempt to see grief in neatly delineated stages. I think that’s bollocks. You can go through all ‘stages’ in same day, think you are ok then get blindsided again weeks or months – or years later. Very little about the human experience is linear.

         I don’t think grief can or should be ‘packaged’ in this way. One of the most damaging things I was told was that ‘healthy’ grief lasts about 18 months – any more than that is ‘wallowing’. Nonsense. Mine easily lasted five years, and that was the process I had to go through.

         But only way out is always through.
         1. helensparkles June 7, 2016 at 7:43 pm

            Kübler-Ross is no linear. It is helpful in understanding responses to change/loss/grief and has been expanded upon hugely since Elizabeth created her model.
            1. Sarah Phillimore Post authorJune 7, 2016 at 9:22 pm

               Sadly, whenever it is quoted at me it is almost always in very simplistic linear terms; I found that deeply unhelpful when I was going through serious trauma and loss. I am not sure the media have picked up on any developments to Kubler-Ross’s theory. But this is hardly surprising if they are still using terms like ‘custody’ in family disputes!
            2. helensparkles June 7, 2016 at 9:41 pm

               Kübler-Ross is like Bowlby, both theories have moved on. This is a model of change/loss which I sometimes use because it represents the ricochet. It is just worth keeping in mind.

               http://www.businessballs.com/freepdfmaterials/fisher-transition-curve-2012bb.pdf
      2. Sam June 7, 2016 at 7:01 pm

         I think Helen and I most be in a different country if not planet. SW made absolutely no attempt to understand my grief but purposefully aggravated my distress. They continue to do so. Lets make it clear I have never threatened them, I do use every means possible to get the truth told as my children remain at risk being placed under a care order with the abuser.
         The article is very powerful and echo’s my experience. I have also been an LIP despite having proof of DV , at one hearing I was told to sit next to the abuser. Only because I have completed assertiveness training did I say no, bearing in mind I can’t even stand the sight of his handwriting let alone him.
         I also had the snide asides between the judge and my ex’s solicitor. If the judge had any sense of decency or sensitivity he would have put a stop to it. There seemed to be little or no understanding that a DV victim would exhibit some anxiety and the court process would provide triggers. Whereas the abuser would be an accomplished actor , which is how he snares his prey in the first place and fools those who may be tempted to rescue her if they were aware of the truth.
         1. Sam June 7, 2016 at 7:41 pm

            I forgot to add one way to make care proceedings considerably better for abuse victims would be to involve mediation as outlined at the Child Protection Conference, but with one difference using shuttle mediation so the abuser and victim do NOT sit in the same room together. Victims may not understand LA’s concerns at that moment and the accusatory manner of court proceedings and quite frankly supervised contact ( often with male supervisors in my experience) simply mimic part of abusers tactics, so a very frightened person becomes even more distressed and unable to engage. Mediation takes the heat out of the situation. It has worked successfully for me when I was head to head with the LA over another matter.
            1. helensparkles June 7, 2016 at 8:22 pm

               I need to know more about mediation as described at the conference, I have used it in CP but never in abuse cases, CAFCASS guidance indicates this is contraindicated.
            2. Sarah Phillimore Post authorJune 7, 2016 at 9:20 pm

               Victoria was very clear that mediation is NOT about compromising on risk. It is about providing a neutral venue and neutral facilitator for discussions. It sounded very valuable to me – and I am someone who has been on two mediation trainings and is very sceptical about the whole thing.
         2. Sarah Phillimore Post authorJune 7, 2016 at 9:25 pm

            Helen has a particular experience of SW which is generally good. Most of us commenting on this site have a particular experience of SW that isn’t good. There are many reasons for that and people should know by now that I do not think the main reasons for that are that individual SW’s are crap or lazy. I think the system is not working to let them do a good job.

            None of us do the debate any service by refusing to recognise the other’s experiences.

            I think if anyone here is unable to accept and respect the experiences of those posting, they need to step away.

            This is not a comment aimed at anyone in particular – it is of general applicability. i don’t want a repeat of what happened with the empathy post.
         3. helensparkles June 7, 2016 at 9:36 pm

            I did actually mean I need to know more Sarah, just that.
            1. helensparkles June 7, 2016 at 9:41 pm

               About mediation I mean – any links?
      3. Angelo Granda June 7, 2016 at 7:33 pm

         Coercive control goes on all the time in family courts and as the writer describes the tactics of intimidation used by those who wish to control a vulnerable party are varied. One of these is to ignore ( turn a deaf’un to what they are saying. No-one listens to them indeed it is as if they are not present at all. Lawyers,SW’s, Guardians ,Police ,ushers, even their own solicitors are usually well-versed in proceedings .They will snigger,laugh openly,show no manners or consideration to any woman who may be in distress, spurn them as being mental etc. when they show natural symptoms of stress and will even suggest that signs of stress indicate an inability to care for children. They will allege this and they will accuse them of that without any foundation and prior to entering the Court room they will have meetings together ( to which parents are excluded ) chat together and slander them. When leaving the court, they will laugh and joke together again showing no respect for the parent who may have just suffered a great injustice.
         The only ones who will generally stick by and show respect for the respondent is their barristers who i absolve from criticism.
         One of the worst insults is whenever a parent opens his or her mouth, SW’s and Guardians etc. are there with pens and notebooks taking it all down ,scribbling consistently which is guaranteed to shut up a parent and scare them.
         We all know about coercive control and SW’s are the worst proponents of it! They do it all the time, please ,Sarah, don’t let them feign sympathy for victims of it. One of the first things they often do is coerce folk into signing S20’s.

         As the writer of this post says,there was proof of domestic violence and i feel the case should have been judged on that fact at a higher court from the beginning. Cases should not have to go to 20 or 30 hearings. The violent person should have been dealt with at the first one. The woman concerned and all witnesses would have been protected from intimidatrion by the criminal system but civil courts are not set up to deal with such problems.
         As the writer says also , no shilly-shallying about , the family court system is not corrupt but it needs to be upgraded quite extensively. Let us not bother going into the psychology of coercive control; none of us are psychologists. We should discuss changes .
         1. helensparkles June 7, 2016 at 8:47 pm

            “We all know about coercive control and SW’s are the worst proponents of it! They do it all the time, please ,Sarah, don’t let them feign sympathy for victims of it.”

            Thanks Angelo but nothing being feigned on my part.
   2. CCC June 8, 2016 at 12:23 pm

      Thank you for your comments.

      The original article flowed better but a cut and paste disaster meant I had redo it!

      I’m not sure it is just women’s groups who ” obsess” with coercive control. What I am seeing is that there is a lot being said about coercive control by those who do not understand it. Some have their own agendas and are determined to frame their situation as cc and some are totally dismissive of it saying that it is the state interfering in private relationships.

      Without a doubt, there is too much misinformation out there and much of it by angry people determined to find a way of imprisoning their ex for either parental alienation or contact denial. The irony being that by actively trying to imprison their ex, they themselves would be guilty of the very thing they are alleging.

      I do agree though that not all domestic abuse has coercive control in it. Some people are just angry. By that I mean they have no wish to control or subjugate, they lash out because they don’t know how not to and some ” get off” on a high octane relationship of making up/breaking up. It is important that professionals are able to identify a situation and not just dismiss it as toxic because, on the surface, it looks as though they are both getting at each other.

      I am not too familiar with the Kübler-Ross curve although I am aware that grief is not always linear and that people can get stuck at a stage. I have seen this where a victim of domestic abuse has felt let down by the system and the ensuing anger has manifested into an awareness campaign that consists of aggressively attacking someone with different views to the point where they themselves become abusive and then justify their actions by using their victimhood. I definitely agree with you that toxic beliefs should not be allowed to filter into the training of professionals and that any training should ensure objectivity.
      1. Angelo Granda June 9, 2016 at 7:12 am

         To c.c.c., I am glad you understand coercive control so well and thank you again for your comments.
         I think in most cases ,coercive control is part of a power battle between parents. Dad will exercise his strength and guile and Mum will engage in her own ways ( mainly verbal ) but equally with the intent of suppressing her partner.
         When exercising his strength and guile by lying ,denying and twisting the truth the man is guilty of criminal behaviour which comes from moral badness.
         From one man to yourself and Sam, it is my opinion that these power battles should not be happening at all. I think a man should be pre-programmed as a child to accept that women rule in the home. All issues such as ‘rules of the house’ to be decided by both but day-to-day running of the house should be led by the mother. Grandmother and aunties to be respected also.
         In my book ( perhaps dated) a man should not sit down with women and engage in quibbles and general home issues with their wives or a bunch of women. He should leave it to them unless asked for his view on a serious issue.
         On really big issues ,perhaps a man could have the final say.
         I think that is how households should be run. Petty quibbles and constant arguing about trivial issues lead to disaster in the long run.
         Argument between husband and wife is morally wrong.
4. Angelo Granda June 7, 2016 at 9:17 am

   Unfortunately,mothers and fathers may eventually come together to work effectively but not necessarily within time-scales relevant to the child/children involved. Thus a Court has to make decisions and order them to do so.
   The parties in dispute come from opposite ends ( male. v. female ) thus are highly unlikely ever to come together on their viewpoints.
   A court has to make the decision ,as i said, and force them to hold to the final decision made. Just as a divorce court does.
   It has to be a real court able to make a just decision. For a court to be real and for justice to be real , the hearings must be open to the Public because convention rules are that justice must be seen to be done.
   In a real court (as opposed to a professional tribunal ) it is not usual for far-reaching decisions to be made based on the opinions, suspicions and usually biased and diametrically opposed viewpoints of the parties involved and it is not usual to hold hearings in private. That means that justice isn’t seen to be done and that Judges are bound to have to make evaluations of the respective parties and prefer the evidence of one to the other. The Family Court’s discretion indeed the integrity of the Judge can later be called into question by complainants ad infinitum. How can that be conducive to justice particularly any child involved?

   A real court is completely open to the Public, hears cases on an impartial investigation of facts made according to legal guidelines, no strict time limits,no limits on the number and type of witness allowed to testify,valid physical forensic evidence and achieving best evidence interviews gathered by Police teams , also on signed and witnessed affidavits ,statements etc. That is real evidence likely to produce just decisions not wrong ones. In a real court ,it is only afterwards at the disposition stage that expert assessments ,professional opinions etc. are taken into account.
   So, in my opinion , if the Family Court is to continue administering justice in serious cases like the one outlined above ( which involves serious allegations of abuse) , it has to change its modus operandi radically and move more into sync. with the methods followed in higher courts. For example, guidelines and safeguards must be adhered to scrupulously. If they are not, there will always be a reasonable element of doubt as to the validity of the Bof P.

   The writer of the above post has gone into detail and bears me out that radical changes are needed. We cannot fudge the issue forever.
   I will be interested to hear whether she made allegations to the Police which they declined to investigate.
   1. helensparkles June 7, 2016 at 8:50 pm

      “The parties in dispute come from opposite ends ( male. v. female )…” do same sex couples not have disputes?
      1. Angelo Granda June 8, 2016 at 3:32 am

         I shall step away from that one .
         Violence and controlling behaviour against women by their male partners is a problem,of course, and when Mums allege it has happened,it is of no help to anyone when it is not investigated fully . She will allege it and he will deny it. A proper Police investigation is essential early on ( based on facts).
         If the dv can be proven,it should be proven before family proceedings begin.The blame for the situation should be allocated to the offender and reformatory action taken by the criminal court. It can impose orders such as probation, community work,Asbo’s etc. and ,in dire cases ,he may even be gaoled. The Court can also order him not to go near Mum or the children if it feels that necessary.
         At present ,the civil courts cannot enforce reform upon him. Can we change the civil courts and grant them the power to impose effective orders? Unless the situation is very,very dire, removing children is abusive and only makes the situation worse but the LA seem to prefer that extreme course, for whatever reason.

         Can we also consider Public Law cases? One party ( the LA) often commits what is tantamount to an act of violence against a family AND subjects parents to coercive control from the outset of a case. Its agents ( the CS ) do not follow correct procedures and legal guidelines and cause immense trauma to children and parents.
         An full investigation of facts is essential early on ( based on correct procedures).
         If the malpractice can be proven,it should be proven before family proceedings begin.The blame for the situation should be allocated to the offenders and reformatory action taken by the Magistrates or the DJ at the county court. The CS should be accountable and it should be possible for the civil court to mend the situation.For example, if children have been removed without due procedure,they should be returned home instantly before the assessment procedures begin. Can we give the family court the power to deal with the CS effectively and make them obey orders?
         Mediation ,other practices and correct procedures are great when the authorities comply but useless if they don’t.
         1. Angelo Granda June 8, 2016 at 4:09 am

            To all readers. Regarding mediation can i make the following point.
            CP professionals should take lessons from others who are regularly involved in successful family mediation work .
            As we all know, many vulnerable families live in rented council accommodation. Housing Associations have dedicated officers who actively engage with the kind of mediation which is proposed and the system should study their practices.It is worth mentioning that these people are NOT social workers in name ( they are helpful and friendly) as a consequence of which families tend to be much more cooperative as a starting point. They do not oppress and their working practices are supportive not authoritiative. E.g. if rows occur and if dv is suspected ,they have a way of making families accept it and will put them in contact with all sorts of agencies such as Community Police . These Community Police are not actual Police officers but will help the situation and are a link to real Police if necessary but not before. The housing officers appear to be trained to put a cap on dysfunctional family and community situations and they seem to be experienced in dealing with children and their problems. They are helpful not destructive . They conduct social work in a way which is not over the top and not based on fear.They have certain powers granted to them but they do not exceed them.They do not usually overreact to a situation as the CS sometimes does and unless a family situation is very ,very dire, they will not go for the ultimate santion of eviction.
            Can we get one in to the discussions and tap their brains?
            All comments welcome.
            1. helensparkles June 8, 2016 at 7:38 am

               It may be useful for you to know that SW work closely with housing and PCSOs. LAs have a ‘troubled families’ team (name varies but was funded by central government post riots which undertakes a similar role but on broader scale than the remit of those agencies.
5. Angelo Granda June 8, 2016 at 8:28 am

   That is very helpful ,Helen, and very useful for me to know. If SW’s want information about ‘mediation’ and how it can work,they should contact the National Organisation of Housing Associations (if there is one) and ask them for an outline of its working model when it comes to mediation etc. and solving family and community problems.
   The CS may then be able to take on board ideas and make effective changes to its own approach and set-up. We need positive action towards change and that might get things started.
   I think their general approach ( and that of the Community Police Officers) is to isolate both parties to a dispute and ask them to define what it is they want to achieve for their family. Why do they think things are not going well? Most families want a happy life and they want to care for their children well and they want work ,access to services ( including MH services) and they want to be protected by the Police from law-breaking and criminal or abusive family members.Neither do they want alcohol or drug addiction in their lives.
   The mediator puts them in touch with various help agencies ,tell them what help is available , how engaging with those agencies ( they make it easy to contact them) will achieve what they want. Sometimes they can even get a parent a job.
   They don’t go in threatening sanctions and ordering families to comply with oppressive commands ( e.g. father is a risk thus must leave home immediately). They do not threaten to take children for adoption and they have procedures which they follow. If they see criminal actions ,like domestic violence is occurring, they will help a mother gather evidence ( make notes of times,dates etc) and prepare a case for a Police investigation of the facts.
   One thing a housing officer should not do is make a referral to the CS without going through all these procedures first. Definitely,SW’s should consult extensively with parents first and make considerable efforts at mediation before calling round to the home with five Police Officers having instigated an S47 enquiry in secret with the immediate intention of removing children without any form of court order.
   That is oppression,inhumanity and cruelty to children.
   I hope Helen, you appreciate the point i made that ordinary,vulnerable families tend to work more positively with the Housing Officer mediators for the simple reason that they are not SW’s in name and do not have such extreme powers.
   To be positive,therefore , can you agree that there is some sense in suggestions that the CS re-organises and changes its name to Family Support or something similar. Public trust in the CS is sadly almost non-existent and it has to be addressed.
   1. HelenSparkles June 8, 2016 at 9:39 am

      I wasn’t asking about mediation generally Angelo, but thank you anyway. I was asking about how Victoria Teggin envisaged it being used in CP, because that seems to differ from my existing guidance. Mediation is used in SW, but it isn’t used in DV cases for example.

      What you are suggesting about the housing officer not referring to CS is that they don’t report safeguarding concerns until they have done all of their work and seen that it doesn’t work. Apart from anything else, other agencies would not be interested in taking on that level of responsibility for risk.

      LAs do have family support teams already. The focus of this blog is on CP, that doesn’t mean it is the only area of social work that exists.

      Of course SW should involve families, but S47 investigations are a response to an immediate risk.
      1. Sam June 8, 2016 at 1:35 pm

         With regard to mediation I’m just summarising from the handout. The mediator is neutral and the process is confidential, so what is said in the room stays there and can not be used in legal proceedings. The mediator being neutral tips the balance of power and levels it between the participants making it a safer place for honest discussion. All had a chance to say what needed to be said even if it was a peripheral issue , the example given is a SW not returning phone calls , which may seem minor to SW but major to a parent and is an obstacle to the working relationship.The purpose of most mediation was to look to the future and find solutions. Anyone seen as relevant such as foster carers could be included. Victoria Teggin also quotes the architects of the approach “It brings new process values that have the power to transform the culture of child welfare generally”
         1. Angelo Granda June 8, 2016 at 8:57 pm

            Thanks for your summary of Victoria’s handout,Sam.
            The approach indeed will have the power to transform the culture of child welfare and it is certainly constructive.
            I want to be constructive too and i don’t want to pour cold water over any constructive ideas , however, i have already commented that mediation ,other practices and correct procedures are great when the authorities comply but useless if they don’t.
            Where would mediation all end?
            I think we should be slightly more radical and make the CS change its organisation and set-up. They should be retrained and granted complete independence from the LA’s.

            Is it not true that CS Social Workers are already intended to be independent,neutral mediators standing between families and the other CP professionals? They are supposed to be the ones doing the mediating ,aren’t they? If they were taught new process values and stuck to them, would that not be a better approach?

            As far as i can see, the best thing achieved by a new mediation service would be that the SW’s would no longer be able to allege falsely that parents will not acknowledge concerns ,cooperate with them and show a willingness to change ( when the opposite is the case). The parental advocates could give ev idence about that.

            As you know,some weeks ago we were discussing the possibility of involving a barrister to carry out mediation duties and keeping check on procedure from the outset and that remains a possibility. Actually, the Conference chair and/or IRO are supposed to carry out that task but i think it is generally accepted they are not strictly neutral.

            All comments welcome.
            1. Sam June 9, 2016 at 3:23 pm

               For me mediation in a different setting worked , as it took the conflict out of the situation. Plus all parties can actually emerge from the process having had their say AND been listened to. SW know the system is failing , unfortunately whilst parents become defensive so do they rather than be honest about the failings. So nothing much gets achieved as emotions escalate. Mediation would give SW the safe space to admit the systems failings as well. That’s my take on it anyway. I would always be willing to try mediation before a court process.
      2. Angelo Granda June 8, 2016 at 8:22 pm

         https://childprotectionresource.online/a-social-worker-wants-to-investigate-how-i-am-caring-for-my-child

         CS general guidance and the statute do not always tally.
         1. helensparkles June 8, 2016 at 8:41 pm

            It isn’t CS guidance I am referring to, it is CAFCASS’s, & not sure there is any mention in medication in statute?
            1. Angelo Granda June 8, 2016 at 9:05 pm

               Sorry for the confusion ,helen,caused by my link and comment not being in order. It was meant to follow yours about S47 enquiries being a response to ‘risk’.
               No mention of CAFFCASS.
6. Sam June 8, 2016 at 1:17 pm

   I recently recieved an answer to a FOI request sent to the MOJ , it was answered by the Judicial Training College. I thought it may be of interest as it is relevent to the original article. Here is part of it:

   “All three topics outlined in your request are covered under “family law training”. It is
   also worth noting that most of those judiciary who sit in family law cases will also sit
   in other jurisdictions and so may receive training in these topics by other routes as
   well.
   A) Equality and diversity is now part of the “social context” training that is
   envisaged by the Judicial College Strategy which states that Judicial training has
   three elements:
   (1) Substantive law, evidence and procedure and, where
   appropriate, expertise in other subjects;
   2) The acquisition and improvement of judicial skills including,
   where appropriate, leadership and management skills;
   (3) The social context within which judging occurs.
   ‘Social context’ includes diversity and equality and these will be integral to the
   College’s training programmes. For example, they must relate to people from a
   variety of backgrounds with different capacities, needs and expectations. You can
   see the full strategy at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-thejudiciary/training-support/judicial-college/judicial-college-strategy-2015-2017/
   B) Domestic Violence has had comprehensive training coverage for many years.
   Family Court judges have to be first authorised and will attend an induction
   course provided by the Judicial College before they sit. The topic arises within the
   (compulsory) induction training. Continuation training, which again will usually
   contain a domestic abuse element, is provided and judges will attend this on a
   minimum cycle of every three years. A similar arrangement exists for both the
   Magistrates and the Legal Advisers who sit in the Family Court. All magistrates
   are required to undertake domestic violence training when they first sit (in the

   Adult Court) which means that this training has already been undertaken before
   being authorised to sit in the Family Court.
   C) Mental Health issues also feature in Family Court training. For example, they
   have recently considered learning disability, the capacity to conduct litigation
   and post natal mother and baby psychiatric units.
   The Judicial College produces an Equal Treatment Bench Book which provides
   information on a range of equality and diversity issues (including mental health) to
   support judges to treat all those who appear before them in an equal manner. The
   Bench Book also includes a section on the Equality act 2010 and is publicly available
   at: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/publications/equal-treatment-bench-book/
   The Judicial Course Directors (members of the Judiciary) decide who is best placed to
   provide information or expertise to the judiciary. Any speaker or outside body who is
   invited to address a judicial training seminar does so only under judicial direction in
   order to protect judicial independence.
   Disclosure Log
   You can also view information that the Ministry of Justice has disclosed in response
   to previous Freedom of Information requests. Responses are anonymised and
   published on our on-line disclosure log which can be found on the MoJ website:
   http://www.justice.gov.uk/information-access-rights/foi-requests/latest-mojdisclosure-log
   The published information is categorised by subject area and in alphabetical order.
   1. Angelo Granda June 9, 2016 at 5:02 am

      Thanks for sharing the information ,Sam.
      Generally, the willingness of Helen to discuss changes to frontline practices on this forum is positive. Various suggestions were advanced at the conference and we all look forward to progress being made in social work and soon. The department has to amend its practices ,appears to acknowledge Public concern and is willing to change.

      Let them get on with it is my attitude. However , to me ,it is more crucial to justice that radical changes are made to frontline practices and Family Courts by the Judiciary. The problem is not so much LA malpractice ,that can be stopped but currently, even when parents identify abuses of procedure, point to false evidence and even when they cooperate with the system and engage to the best of their ability, lawyers fail them. The Court system does not work and standards must be raised.
      Do lawyers accept this fully or not? I do not think transparency in the form they currently envisage will solve all the problems we have. Changes must go further to eliminate all possibilities of system abuse. Even after the social work system has improved, there will still be cases where dishonest SW’s give false evidence. Training of Judges is a major issue. They should not allow so much latitude for procedural lapses. Parents should make a big issue in Court about them and it is the task of their lawyers to do it for them.

      It has been noticed by the CPR that not many SW’s comment. However some do and we are grateful to Helen for her time and contributions. I would like to make the point that not many Children’s Legal Panel solicitors appear to come on identifying themselves and commenting either. I wonder if their management’s discourage them from doing so.
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post authorJune 9, 2016 at 7:43 am

         Yes I agree. Helen is to be praised for her willingness to continue commenting and the explanations she has given about how she operates. I am very appreciative of that, even if I don’t always accept what she says, or get irritated! This is probably a good sign – one of my favourite quotes is from Gertrude Stein (I think?) – The truth will set you free. But first it will piss you off.
         1. HelenSparkles June 9, 2016 at 4:51 pm

            “Remember, the truth will set you free, but at first it may annoy the daylights out of you.” Is Joe Klaas about the 12 step programme, Gloria Steinem misquoted it as “The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.” So no Gertrude.
   2. Sam June 9, 2016 at 3:49 pm

      The article echo’s previous pleas I have made regarding understanding in depth from the judiciary regarding domestic violence as it is present in so many public law cases alongside addiction and learning difficulties. All issues that actually are extremely difficult to judge without personal experience. I am going to risk the wrath of Sarah, and mention a certain programme that goes out on Radio 4 at 7pm and has an omnibus on Sunday morning. I dare not mention it by name or she will probably lump me together with Ian Josephs and ban me forever. Since that programme has covered a DV storyline I am aware that many peoples eyes have been opened to the reality of the process by which a woman becomes a victim and how difficult it is to initially speak out and then be heard. i have had a number of interesting conversations with people who would not have believed that type of woman would be a victim.
      Just as another example would a judge be aware that a significant minority of alcoholics tend to be high achievers and perfectionists. So for instance , if they had not got to the bottom of their addictive journey their home is very likely to be immaculate, which would look fabulous on an assessment but the reality is any children living in that household would have anxiety problems from being worried if anything was out of place.
      “Annie” from Safeguarding Survivor has demonstrated how a personal story teaches so much more than theory and in this crucial areas, mentioned above I really do feel judges would learn so much more and be more sensitive to the issues involved if they actually used “real” people in training.
      1. Angelo Granda June 9, 2016 at 10:52 pm

         Sam , i think we must be absolutely honest and not quite so hopeful and naive.
         The kind of professional who inflicts miscarriages of justice, inhumanity and cruelty upon children and parents are doing just that. They are contravening article 3 rights( torture and degradation) .They want to victimise a Mum who is vulnerable and capitalise on it not help her. They contravene article 6 rights and mispresent information to their advantage , saying you cannot be treated in time-scales and their evidence is not impartial . They do not want you to have a fair trial. Let us not pretend they do. Article 8 rights, no one can convince me that permanent liquidation of a family is proportionate to the risk of future harm owing to a mother having previously been a victim of dv. I am not certain but i think,off-hand article 10 is about access to justice. The system does seem to conspire not to allow a parent access to any justice at all. Appeals virtually impossible to get permission for not only because of the legal-funding issue but because once a miscarriage occurs , it is so difficult to get representation. How many solicitors did you contact before you finally got one to look at your bundle ? Ten,Twenty? When you do get one,they will only look at the final judgment and go from that. Then there is article 14. Discrimination. MH victims are discriminated against.
         Really ,coercive control is the last of your problems when you put it into perspective with these other inhumanities. You can expect it. Why should a Court which lacks so much consideration towards human rights suddenly start to think about keeping you isolated in the court ante-room from the LA’s golden boy?
         I’ll tell you how much some family court judges and lawyers care about MH problems should I ? They have no empathy with it at all! One woman i know was so stressed out by the loss of her children and witnessing their suffering in LA care that she declined to go into the box and give oral testimony. She felt she would have broken down under questioning. As soon as they heard this, the LA lawyers immediately let it be known that they would be demanding that the Judge take negative inferences from it. The Judge sent out a message to her that she would be doing so and so she did. That is female to female understanding for you. Do you think any MH appreciation training affected that decision?
         As regards Social work assessments and theories are concerned, it seems the height of insensitivity to suggest that victims are passing through the Kübler-Ross curve ( more like the Kubla Khan descending curve into oblivion). Victims are not grieving, they are suffering far worse than that and it will not pass after 5 years ,it lasts for life.
         All these theories do is perform self-catharctic favours to the perpetrators of the inhumanity,to be honest. The very sight of their victims disgusts them and they would prefer it if they would simply disappear into a self-dug hole out of their sight. That is the impression i get. Any natural display of emotion ( such as tears or shaking with nerves) will be scribbled down in notebooks and used against a victim. No empathy there and none intended.Everything used to their own advantage. Need i go on.
         Sorry for this long screed because the truth will annoy the daylights out of the professionals .
         We can but hope that the mediation ,advocacy and transparency changes the system for future cases you are involved in Sam and CCC.
         1. helensparkles June 10, 2016 at 6:27 am

            “As regards Social work assessments and theories are concerned, it seems the height of insensitivity to suggest that victims are passing through the Kübler-Ross curve ( more like the Kubla Khan descending curve into oblivion). Victims are not grieving, they are suffering far worse than that and it will not pass after 5 years ,it lasts for life.”
            If you just look at the loss curve it does appear simplistic, the research and theory base is not. But my comment about it is much more about the need for professionals to understand the grief and trauma parents are experiencing a well as the way they might behave as a result.

            “All these theories do is perform self-catharctic favours to the perpetrators of the inhumanit, to be honest.” Perhaps you would like to tell us which theories and I can help you with why they are important? Or do you discount human psychology etc. generally?

            As you’ve said before Angelo, you wouldn’t dispute the medical knowledge base from a doctor so why dispute the social work knowledge base? It is just as evidence based and testable.
            1. Angelo Granda June 10, 2016 at 7:49 am

               I did not dispute the social work knowledge base, i simply dispute the way it is applied by some SW’s.
               They do not apply the theories at all unless it supports their litigation and raises doubts about a parent.
               I am sure the Kubler-Ross grief cycle is sound psychologically speaking but how can it be applied to a parent who is suffering not from grief but from ongoing mental torture ,degradation and discrimination as a result of LA policies?
               Same as our friend Brene ,who writes good books ,is well-read by the Public apparently and whose work is sound and well-tested. The SW’s apply it to explain away the truth when faced with it by a parent saying they are likely to be inventing a false narrative. Yet they never apply it and admit they may have invented one themselves and face the truth.
               Social work theory may be used at the disposition stage of a case after a final decision has been made ( in the same way psychological reports,probation reports and assessments come into play before sentencing in a criminal case) but should not be entered into proceedings before because cases should be heard on facts alone. Otherwise , MH problems which may have arisen because of the LA’s own inhumane actions to children and parents are used in a discriminatory fashion. Okay in some cases but not in serious ones.
               Have the Courts decided yet whether the Kubler-Ross cycle is a linear process or an exponential curve? Or can the experts interpret the theory as they see fit?
            2. HelenSparkles June 10, 2016 at 8:50 am

               I am not sure if courts are aware of Kubler Ross, you’d have to ask them, but it is not linear and that would be clear if you just looked up the info on the curve.

               I would reiterate that my comment about it is much more about the need for professionals to understand the grief and trauma parents are experiencing a well as the way they might behave as a result.
         2. Sam June 10, 2016 at 7:04 am

            I do agree that the effect is for life. I see this from a lady I know whose child was taken away over fifty years ago. It has of course had a similar impact on the child.
            If anyone has any doubt at all about the parting of a mother from a child they should watch the bitter sweet film Philomena.
            Parents DO NOT just move on, it is impossible, to forget a child. Just as children cannot dismiss parents, even if they are told lies about them order to severe the connection.
            There has to be transparency in courts. What happened in my case, and others, would not have happened in an open court with a decent journalist present.
            1. helensparkles June 10, 2016 at 7:43 am

               It is true that the impact is for life, which is why it is even more sad that parents don’t make changes when they need to.

               50 years ago we lived in a world when children were removed from unmarried mothers etc. one I would not wish to return to.
      2. Angelo Granda June 9, 2016 at 10:54 pm

         If you do manage to get your children back like Annie, the handover will probably be in a car-park!
      3. Sarah June 10, 2016 at 10:38 am

         Sorry Sam. I am a patient woman but I have clear boundaries. I can put up with Ian ranting, but this kind of unashamed Archers propaganda is a step too far. I am afraid I will simply delete any further attempts to promote this dreadful programme.

         BUT all joking aside – I think it is very interesting how uncomfortable and angry that story line made a lot of people…
         1. HelenSparkles June 10, 2016 at 10:51 am

            it is an absolutely brilliant story line played out over time …
         2. Sam June 10, 2016 at 12:51 pm

            I promise not to mention it again your excellency ( touching non existent forelock) Think I might have got mixed up with a ferrero rocher advert ,might have got away with it this time, fingers crossed
            1. Sarah Phillimore Post authorJune 10, 2016 at 2:16 pm

               You have grovelled sufficiently to appease me.
               On this occasion.
               But don’t let it happen again.
7. Angelo Granda June 9, 2016 at 9:57 am

   I like that quote ,Sarah.
   To put myself in Helen’s shoes for a moment, can i apologise to her for praising her contributions so often. I imagine it is irritating for her.
   Indeed , if any commentator wants to embarrass me and drive me away from the forum, all you have to do is praise me and agree with what i say. Agree ,yes certainly but praise and thank me ,no thank you!
   So i shall cut the praise and thanks down Helen.
   1. Angelo Granda June 10, 2016 at 3:58 pm

      Sam, as a matter of interest ,can stress,trauma and any other MH problems cause a woman to show nervous symptoms like ‘ leaking’, walking unsteadily, colliding with cupboard doors , slurring words and irregular speech? And to what extent will the monthly menstrual cycle exacerbate the problems?

      I think these are clear symptoms of traumatic stress caused by fear of dv, fear for children etc. and i wonder if you can confirm my belief.
      1. HelenSparkles June 10, 2016 at 4:02 pm

         No disrespect to Sam but I think you need a trained medic for that enquiry.
         1. Angelo Granda June 10, 2016 at 4:16 pm

            Thanks,Helen , i have seen medical evidence from a psychologist about it.
            I am interested in the view of a victim and also interested how those symptoms would be viewed by Social Workers and a family court. I was starting by asking Sam.
            1. Angelo Granda June 10, 2016 at 4:29 pm

               CCC has already described symptoms well in her post and i was wondering if Sam can confirm it. I am not asking for a professional ,qualified view just your own, Sam but if you don’t feel able to answer,by all means say so.
      2. helensparkles June 10, 2016 at 5:40 pm

         It’s not hard to find the indictors/symptoms of PTSD online but none of those feature, doesn’t mean they don’t exist, you’d need a medic to tell you that. Anecdotal experience won’t be of huge value, you need an evidence base for consideration by SW and the court. On their own they read as intoxication, hypoglycaemia or a stroke.
8. Sam June 10, 2016 at 5:18 pm

   Angelo

   I can’t say I have ever come across anything you describe. Trauma normally causes triggers eg if you see someone similar to your abuser you react. It also can cause anxiety and/or depression. Helen is right you need a trained medic
9. Angelo Granda June 10, 2016 at 8:52 pm

   Thanks,Sam and Helen. If trauma can cause depression,that is interesting because depression can affect voice control, affect speech,cause listlessness,fatigue,unsteadiness of gait and all sorts of symptoms. Also it is interesting that symptoms can be triggered by seeing the abuser again .In other words just being close to him or her or someone similar or to experience similar abusive conditions and trauma will trigger them,i assume. I think also traumatic stress or any stress can cause tears and even cause one to wet oneself etc.
   Whether pre-menstrual stress will exacerbate the various symptoms,i am not sure, but i suppose it is possible.
10. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 5:05 am

    Sam, i already have seen opinions of trained medics and whilst it is helpful ,it is complicated,of course plus there is an old saying that a little medical knowledge can be dangerous which is why i am asking for your experiences.
    Rightly or wrongly , i believe that great harm is suffered by children who have the trauma ( removal from mum and brothers,sisters,father etc. ) imposed upon them by the system . When claiming to want to protect children from the risk of emotional harm, the authorities actually make it certain to occur when they take children into care. We know the LAW says removal should only be as a very last resort when nothing else will do but SW’s seem unable to take it in. They are convinced they are doing good .
    The children develop stress syndromes, symptoms of depression ( bed-wetting, polar disorders,self-harming and other behavioural difficulties also increased learning difficulties ( if they had them in the first place). They can also develop other physiological problems such as epilepsy due to extreme emotional disturbance suffered ,speech and language disorder due to disorientation . They often develop eating disorders and their growth can be stunted.They look physically ill and unhappy. This is why i say lawyers should always see the children for themselves.Also the drugs which are used on children ( all done without consultation with the parents) can lead to problems,side effects and with older girls menstrual pain and problems,gender diosorientation of all kinds especially when they are given contraceptive drugs ( unknown to themselves and parents).
    It is not easy for a father to give an opinion on these things but one tries to understand and my common sense tells me that when a girl gets to a certain age she will begin to develop natural desires and feelings including maternal instincts. All this will be difficult to express in the ‘prison’ of a special needs residential care home. They miss out on so much when not in a family setting. They are suffering in care.

    I suggest more research should be done into this.Currently the only response we get from cp professionals is that the problems stem from abuse suffered at the hands of parents.They say this even when children haven’t suffered abuse at home. Absolute self-catharctic rubbish!
    Specialist medical and/or psychological assessments are called for before welfare decisions are taken by family courts not only in applications for a care-order but in all applications for discharge of a care order.
    1. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 8:43 am

       There is research and it is known that being separated from your family of origin causes trauma. All the more reason for families not to harm their children?

       That the state doesn’t make a great parent is also known because the outcomes of children in care are not great, they are over represented in all the cohorts you would prefer them not to be, which is why there is adoption. Children do better in adoptive than fostering placements. The antecedents to children being placed with any kind of carer affect those outcomes. A child who is very traumatised by their home environment will not necessarily have the resilience to recover.

       “All this will be difficult to express in the ‘prison’ of a special needs residential care home.” There are very few of these.

       Most of the children I have seen in care have been transformed by having people who love and care for them and meet their needs. It is very sad that their parents couldn’t do this.

       The symptoms you describe are not the indicators of depression.

       PMT is not stressful at all for most women! There are rare cases of a disorder when it is.
       1. Sam June 11, 2016 at 9:54 am

          Helen I could not disagree more about PMS. It is not a made up phenomenon, it’s interesting that you dismiss it as woman who have never experienced the symptoms are often the harshest critics . Ditto Menopause. It appears about 30% of woman have moderate to severe symptoms http://www.pms.org.uk/about/aboutus2
          1. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 10:56 am

             As a woman? Really? – That would imply I would have a bias towards my own gender? My gender has nothing to do with anything. You are talking about a diagnosable condition. I didn’t say it was made up or dismiss and there are extreme versions but (using your link) only 5 – 8% of women experience severe PMS. That is not common. I also do not think it would impact upon PTSD in the way you suggest (but you would need a doctor for that). You are painting a picture of a woman crazed with hormones and trauma behaving in a particular way, I have no idea what you are intending to explore but I’d leave the PMS out of it.
11. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 6:10 am

    May i add that at the conference, a young woman stood up during the question and answering session. She appeared to be very nervous and her voice was a little unsteady due to nerves etc. at standing up and speaking to professionals. She was an ordinary mother and her question was along the lines of what can we do about children in care and stop the suffering etc. She was clearly emotional and very sincere. She wanted to make her point and wanted an answer of some sort. Any way she must have done something wrong because her question was skipped over completely ,no reply was given at all and the convener went straight to the next question. Hers was the only question not answered and i feel she was discriminated against owing to her display of nerves.
    Of course, this happens with professionals regularly in court. I am a human being and i really felt for the young woman and what appeared to be disrespect to her.
    Unfortunately, this story has a sad ending for me because i saw her go into the tea-room and i went in too hoping to open a conversation with her. I said hello and said i was interested in her question. Well i can only think she was a victim of domestic abuse because she started to tremble ,clench her teeth ( as described by CCC when in a stressful situation) ,in fact she turned away seemingly unable to face me. I can only think she saw in me similarities to her abuser. What more can i say except that anecdotes can tell us a lot and research can be based on them. `
    1. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 8:45 am

       Research cannot be based on anecdotes and they tell you about one person’s experience. This one tells you about your experience of that person, not theirs. You have absolutely no idea if she experienced DV or you reminded her of her abuser, that is supposition.
       1. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 9:07 am

          QUOTE : You have absolutely no idea if she experienced DV or you reminded her of her abuser, that is supposition : UNQUOTE

          As usual,you are right ,Helen, it was possibly a wrong supposition. Perhaps i was being too benevolent to professionals. I could easily have supposed that she hadn’t suffered from dv . It is equally possible that she had suffered inhumanity and abuse by the authorities and was mistaking me for a SW or another cp professional.
          1. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 11:24 am

             Or anything really. Professionals don’t need your benevolence, it is absolutely clear all over this blog what you think about them which is why it means exactly nothing if you praise or thank me. I am not prepared to be the ‘good’ social worker, I am proud to be part of my profession, and most of the parents I work with know exactly what I do to help them. The one that doesn’t, obviously I can’t really tell you about them, but they need to blame me.
       2. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 12:24 pm

          All my suppositions about the lady i mentioned might be wrong ,of course,in which case if she happens to be a reader of these comments , i hope she will forgive me.
    2. Sarah Phillimore Post authorJune 11, 2016 at 4:18 pm

       I don’t accept we ‘skipped over’ anyone’s comment or question.
       We will have to listen to the podcast when its on the TP website.
       As the whole point of the day was to listen to and engage with others, I just don’t accept that anyone was deliberately ‘ignored’ in the way you suggest.
       1. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 5:58 pm

          I don’t think it was deliberately ignore either ,Sarah. Time was running short and it was a sudden change of topic ( which i think meant a lot to the questioner ) Skipped may not be the right word , but there was no reply. Neither was there any expectation or imperative that all questions must be answered.
          I couldn’t help mentioning it because in court the same sort of questions are always sidestepped as indeed are most valid complaints by parents particularly if the comments are put in an unprofessional manner.In other words ,they are not listened to. Out of court at reviews etc.,it is even worse.Another argument in favour of advocacy (mediation)
12. Sam June 11, 2016 at 7:32 am

    I do remember the lady’s question,though I think it was more of a comment than a question. It was reasonable asking about what should be done about the children currently in care as the focus was on changes in the future. Realistically I suppose the answer is nothing as you can’t change the past, however I personally can imagine a number of civil claims may arise in the future if children fully understand what happened in their cases. I certainly hope that my children sue the LA .
    I agree Angelo children in care do self harm,bed wet etc but so do many in dysfunctional families . The question must be did they do it before coming into care ? Surely if not the care is then causing them harm, rather than protecting them.Just another thought medication can cause some of the symptoms you have described.
    1. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 8:53 am

       Sam, the question of children suffering in care was bypassed by professionals at the conference and i know for certain that the same questions are dodged by professionals in court sessions. It is as if the authorities do not want to face up to the truth and to all the harm they do to children. In court if the parents raise issues of fact concerning their children and LA care, they are either accused of MH problems or it is assumed they are inventing self-defensive narratives etc.

       In one case the question of whether any abuse had been suffered by children at home and whether symtoms had shown before removal was raised by parents and their lawyers asked the questions in the instruction letter to the psychological and educational experts. The question never got answered. Why not? The Guardian omitted it from the letter actually sent to the expert assessors. She knew the truth would not help the LA case.It was pointed out by the parent’s barrister at their request ( nobody else had noticed it) to the Judge who found a way round it and the barrister did not press the point ( no doubt due to time limits). Anyway by then too many decisions had already been taken by professionals before the hearing and the judge would not want to rock the boat.
       Next question,how can we raise the standards in the family courts?
       1. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 10:59 am

          Angelo, I think you really need to read the research on children in care. There is plenty of it, it isn’t overlooked, and the balance is always how damaging is home vs. substitute care for children.

          It doesn’t seem to me that this was the subject of the conference, it is the subject of a lot of other conferences attended by SW and other professionals, parents can attend those too.
    2. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 11:00 am

       The children who sue the LA tend to be those who were left at home and should not have been.
13. Sam June 11, 2016 at 3:41 pm

    Is that because children in care MAY be fed a false story about how they end up in care AND they lack opportunities to accessible legal advice. Who is going to tell children wrongly adopted ,through unreliable medical evidence ,that they could have been brought up by their parents?
    The truth about a child’s background is so important, it helps form identity. I am determined that I will leave a paper trail so that in future my children will have understanding of the real reason why we were parted not some version that suits other people .
    1. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 4:06 pm

       Most children in care go home anyway.
       Children in foster care have access to free legal advice via the LA.
       There is access to records.
       I don’t your version or other people’s but both are on the file.
    2. Angelo Granda June 13, 2016 at 6:35 pm

       Sam, I hope you don’t mind me asking questions but i am interested in your comment on paper trails. After the final hearing, did you get a copy of the Court bundle and judgment to use in future applications for discharge etc?
       The reason i ask is because some parents don’t and half of the documents aren’t in it e.g. counsel’s submissions for and against them,medical reports,etc.etc.
       Did you get everything or just part of the bundle?
       1. Sam June 14, 2016 at 7:21 am

          I had the bundle however at one point I had a solicitor who did not even want to give me that due to what she called ‘confidentiality’ . I suppose some parents may let others read it ,I personally think it is essential that a parents have it if they can understand it.
          1. Angelo Granda June 14, 2016 at 7:34 am

             From what i have seen the ‘court bundle’ in respect of previous proceedings ( the care proceedings) which are called for when discharge is applied is not complete. It appears to be a ‘sanitised’ one.Many documents missing.Some statements included .Others not.
14. Sam June 11, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    Helen So because most children in care go home anyway It does not matter that they are told the wrong story!! I normally can see the grey but not in this case. Care is not a jolly experience akin to an extended holiday. It marks people for life, for good or Bad and its normally the latter. As you pointed out previously outcomes are appalling, MH,prison etc. My family have been completely screwed by the system and are now being fed a false narrative, which will affect our relationship forever. There is absolutely no middle ground, no happy ending just a family ruined over generations because professionals are not accountable, are badly trained and too busy watching their own backs.
    1. HelenSparkles June 11, 2016 at 5:41 pm

       I could have responded to your comment but i didn’t. I just made another comment instead about access to information. I absolutely agree that being in care isn’t a breeze & I wish substitute parenting wasn’t necessary for anyone. I also agree that children should know their story.

       The problem for me (& the reason I didn’t respond to your comment) is that I spend a lot of my time talking to children about why they can’t be at home & hearing parents say something completely different. Lying in fact, & blaming the SW, or telling children to say something about their foster carer so they can come home. I didn’t really think any of that was going to get us anywhere but I guess it’s a fuller response.

       I am not saying that is your story & I absolutely think professionals should be accountable.
       1. Sam June 11, 2016 at 7:11 pm

          I think we will have to agree to differ on one or two points. As you say arguing isn’t going to get us anywhere.
          1. helensparkles June 11, 2016 at 8:02 pm

             That our experiences are different is worth knowing for both of us though.
    2. HelenSparkles June 11, 2016 at 6:09 pm

       Oh & outcomes for children in care aren’t just because there are in care, they are predicated on the antecedents.
15. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 9:46 pm

    QUOTE: i don’t disagree at all. But the problem is – and we have had this conversation many times now as well – is how are we going to practically implement this?
    You are suggesting a simply massive expansion in the role of the criminal justice system : UNQUOTE

    Sarah, To return to the subject of fair hearings. The best way to achieve justice in cases like that of CCC is to hear them on facts, then it will be decided at the very first hearing whether or not the husband is guilty of dv or coercive controlling behaviour. If he is that is justice for the complainant. If he is not guilty that is justice for him. If the case is heard on the BofP based on anything other than facts just opposing stories and suspicions,opinions and professional assessments etc. there will be justice for neither of the parties or the children. There might follow 10 or 20 further hearings because neither will accept they are right or wrong.
    Thinking about it , i suggest that when a case is heard on facts alone , then the case is a more suitable one to be heard before a judge alone. Criminal cases are more suited to be heard by one judge who decides the case.Maybe ,in criminal cases there could be a half-way house between magistrates court and crown court which would not need a jury . That would save time and money and the new court would be able to issue heavier sentences than the Magistrates.

    When there aren’t enough facts to prove someone guilty of a charge and the CPS will not prosecute meaning it has to go to a private law civil court case for a dispute to be aired with proof depending on a bofp then justice may be better served if the opposing evidence was judged by a jury of peers with the help of a judge not by a judge alone. The loser would then be less likely to complain afterwards whether it be the mum or the dad. It would be a fairer method , a father would not be able to scream ‘corruption’ nor would Mum UNLESS fair procedure were not followed as in a criminal court. So the civil court will have to raise its standards and stick scrupulously to legal guidelines. If it happened that way ,the court could allot blame to the offender at the first hearing and the case could be ‘disposed’ of at the second by the judge alone. If it was a less serious private law case where no crime were alleged maybe a jury will not be necessary but if that were so, evidence would have to be confined to facts and heard by a judge (possibly on paper) in something akin to a divorce court. No scope for coercive control there,i hope and no need for it anyway.
    Similarly,in Public Law cases at the civil court serious cases to be heard on the bofp to have a jury.All guidelines to be followed scrupulously as in a criminal court. A fair verdict more likely and no scope for cries of corruption. A strict rule to be applied ( to comply with Article 8) that no order imposed will exceed any which can be imposed by a criminal court unless absolutely nothing else will do in very dire cases. Minor cases which do involve a possibility of the permanent removal of children to be heard in a different level of court by one judge (perhaps on paper) on facts alone.
    These are just a few ideas from a parent and they will probably sound daft to a lawyer but please throw them into the fire for discussion. We wouldn’t need thousands more Police or thousands of hours more court time.

    Don’t forget we aren’t trying to please the judiciary or the CP system, we are aiming to restore Public trust in the system and ensure justice.
    1. Angelo Granda June 11, 2016 at 9:50 pm

       Sorry about the error.I meant minor Public Law cases which DO NOT involve the possibility of permanent removal to be heard on facts alone before one judge.
16. Angelo Granda June 12, 2016 at 1:25 am

    Obviously, i would never expect these suggestions ever to be taken seriously by anyone ,neither would i expect any suggestions from anyone below the rank of Lord Chief Justice to be when it comes to changing courts about but i am merely suggesting it will not take much imagination for the powers that be to make changes and they would not necessarily cost them a lot. In fact they might save a lot of hearings.

Comments are closed.